ACIT, BARODA CIRCLE-4 vs. MAHESH ENAMELLED WIRES PVT. LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the issue involved in the present Tax Appeal is squarely covered against the Revenue by the Division Bench's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Comed Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (dated 26/12/2013 in Tax Appeal No.1479/2006). This decision, in turn, relied upon an earlier Division Bench ruling in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd. ([2010] 327 ITR 369 (Guj.)). The principle established is that excise duty is to be excluded at the time of valuation of the closing stock of finished goods at the end of the accounting period. Consequently, the substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The appeal is dismissed.
What were the facts?
The Revenue has filed a Tax Appeal before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench 'B'. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 1998-99. The core of the dispute lies in the ITAT's decision to exclude excise duty when valuing the closing stock of finished goods at the end of the accounting period. The assessee is Mahesh Enamelled Wires Pvt. Ltd., and the appellant is the ACIT, Baroda Circle-4. The procedural history involves the ITAT's order which is now under challenge by the Revenue.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law to exclude the excise duty at the time of valuation of closing stock of finished goods at the end of the accounting period? (Question of law). The Revenue's contention is that the ITAT erred in excluding excise duty from the valuation of closing stock. The Assessee's contention is not recorded in the judgment. The Revenue relies on the High Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Comed Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (dated 26/12/2013 in Tax Appeal No.1479/2006) and Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd. reported in [2010] 327 ITR 369 (Guj.).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
None explicitly mentioned in the provided text, other than the general reference to the Income Tax Act.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) O/TAXAP/445/2007 JUDGMENT [1.0] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench “B” (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) dated 28/04/2006 in ITA No.548/Ahd/2002 for the Assessment Year 1998-99, the revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal raising the following substantial question of law; “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law to exclude the excise duty at the time of valuation of closing stock of finished goods at the end of accounting period?” [2.0] Today, when the present Tax Appeal is taken up for final hearing, Shri K.M. Parikh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue has fairly conceded that the issue involved in the present Tax Appeal is squarely covered against the revenue in view of th decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s.
Comed Chemicals Pvt. Ltd dated 26/12/2013 rendered in Tax Appeal No.1479/2006. [2.1] Identical question came to be considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Comed Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd. reported in [2010] 327 ITR 369 (Guj.) it is held by the Division Bench that the excise duty at the time of valuation of the closing stock of finished O/TAXAP/445/2007 JUDGMENT goods at the end of the accounting period is to be excluded. In view of the binding decision of the Division Bench of this Court, the substantial question of law raised in the present Tax Appeal is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. [3.0] Under the circumstances, the present Tax Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (M.R. SHAH, J.) (S.H. VORA, J.)
Siji
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
