Relief to Jindal Saw: ITAT Rules Excise Duty Demand not Chargeable to Tax being Capital Receipt in Nature [Read Order]

In a relief to Jindal Saw Ltd, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) of Delhi ruled that the excise duty refund received by the company is not chargeable to tax, classifying it as a capital receipt rather than a revenue receipt. This judgment arises from appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee, Jindal Saw Ltd, concerning the tax treatment of excise duty refunds claimed under a government incentive scheme aimed at promoting industrial growth in Gujarat’s Kutch District following the 2001 earthquake. The case centers on Jindal Saw Ltd, who had established new industrial units in Mundra, Gujarat, qualifying for benefits under the Central Government's Excise Duty Incentive Scheme, outlined in Notification No. 39/2001. The scheme was introduced to encourage economic recovery and industrial development in Kutch by providing excise duty exemptions to new industrial units set up after the earthquake. Under the scheme, manufacturers were required to first pay excise duty and then claim refunds, which would last for up to five years from the commencement of commercial production. In the financial year under scrutiny, the assessee received an excise duty refund of ₹1,63,15,661. Initially, the assessee-company reported the refund as a taxable revenue receipt in its income tax return. However, during the appellate proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) , the assessee argued that the refund should be treated as a capital receipt, citing the larger public interest behind the incentive scheme. The CIT(A), after reviewing the case, accepted the assessee’s argument, agreeing that the excise duty refund was not taxable as it was in the nature of a capital receipt intended to encourage industrial development in a disaster-hit region. Get a Copy of Bharat’s Income Tax Act, Click here This decision was based on the "purpose test" principle, a key determinant in such cases. The purpose test focuses on the intent behind a financial incentive, rather than the form or mode of disbursement. In this instance, the excise duty refund was granted to attract new investments to Kutch for economic rehabilitation and industrial growth, which classified it as a capital receipt. The assessee further supported its claim by relying on a Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd, which established that the purpose behind government incentives should dictate their tax treatment. The Revenue, in its appeal, challenged the CIT(A)’s ruling, arguing that the refund was revenue in nature and should be taxed accordingly. The bench of Mr Saktijit Dey and Mr Balaganesh however, upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, concluding that the excise duty refund was indeed a capital receipt. The tribunal found that the incentive was primarily aimed at industrial development in a disaster-affected area, with the intention of revitalizing the region’s economy through job creation and infrastructure development. As such, it could not be taxed as income in the hands of Jindal Saw Ltd. The ITAT also dismissed other contentions raised by the Revenue, including objections to the admissibility of assessee’s additional grounds before the CIT(A). The tribunal reiterated that appellate authorities are fully within their rights to admit legal grounds even if they are raised for the first time during appeal, as long as they pertain to the core issue and do not require fresh factual determinations. Get a Copy of Bharat’s Income Tax Act, Click here Further bolstering the tribunal's decision was a reference to a Gujarat High Court ruling in the SAL Steel Ltd vs Union of India case, which highlighted the purpose behind such excise duty incentives. The court stressed that these incentives were introduced to promote long-term economic and industrial recovery in the Kutch region after the devastating earthquake, thus reinforcing the capital nature of the refunds. In result, the decision favored the assessee. Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

Relief to Jindal Saw: ITAT Rules Excise Duty Demand not Chargeable to Tax being Capital Receipt in Nature [Read Order]

Your free access to Taxscan has Expired

To read the article, get a premium account.

Taxscan Premium

Topics

Relief to Jindal Saw: ITAT Rules Excise Duty Demand not Chargeable to Tax being Capital Receipt in Nature [Read Order]

Your free access to Taxscan has Expired

To read the article, get a premium account.

Taxscan Premium

Sign-up to receive exclusive news and promotions straight to your inbox!

Topics