Circle v. Marigold Paints Pvt. Ltd.....opponent(S

O/TAXAP/846/2007 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 846 of 2007 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA ========================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? ========================================================== THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANAND CIRCLE....Appellant(s) Versus MARIGOLD PAINTS PVT. LTD.....Opponent(s) ========================================================== Appearance: MR KM PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR BHARGAV KARIA FOR MR RK PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAHandHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA Date : 22/04/2015 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A-Bench, Ahmedabad dated 09.10.2006 passed in ITA No.2098/Ahd/2002andC.Os. No.242/Ahd/2006 for A.Y.1998-1999, the Revenue has preferred the present tax appeal to consider 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.Today, when the present tax appeal is taken up for final hearing, Shri Bhargav Karia, learned advocate appearing with Shri R.K. Patel, learned advocate advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-assessee has drawn our attention to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. M/s.Comed Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. dated 26.12.2013 rendered in Tax Appeal No.1479 of 2006 and submitted that the question of law raised in the present tax appeal is held to be in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and it is held that there shall be exclusionof excise dutyfromthe valuation of closing stock of finished goods. 2.1.Shri Parikh, learned advocate appearing for the Revenue is not in a position to dispute the above. He is also not in a position to point out any contrary decision to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s.Comed Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 3.We have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal as well as the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s.Comed Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In the said case of M/s.Comed Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has held that there shall be exclusionof excise dutyfromthe valuation of closing stock of finished goods. 4.In view of the above and for the reasons stated in the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s.Comed Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the question raised in the present tax appeal is also held against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Consequently, the present tax appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (M.R.SHAH, J.) Hitesh (S.H.VORA, J.)