The assessment order is bereft of any discussion as to what were the materials adverse to the assessee and what was the inference that could be drawn in the light of those materials and documents. Consequently, even while we do not fault the Tribunal’s reasoning about the denial of opportunity to the assessee, the outcome has to be slightly different especially in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in M. Pirai Choodi (supra).
The Supreme Court today refused to interfere with the policy on FDI in retail, saying that if it does not stand in Parliament then it would be at government’s peril. A Bench of Justices R.M. Lodha and A.R. Dave said that the policy making is the sole prerogative of the executive and refused to direct the government to place it in Parliament.
The judgement of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemical Co. Ltd. [2000] 245 ITR 384 squarely applies to this case and the same has been affirmed by this Court, which is reported in CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. [2003] 261 ITR 275 . The assessee followed the net method of valuation of closing stock. The Authorities below are right in coming to the conclusion that MODVAT Credit is excise duty paid.
