IRM Offshore & Marine Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

CO 59/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3514 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K SINGH
• Section: 43B; 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.670/AHD/2015 AY 2008-09 AND CROSS OBJECTION NO.59/AHD/2015 2008-09 ( IN ITA NO.670/AHD/2015 AY 2008-09 ) THE DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD / VS. IRM OFFSHORE & MARINE EGINEERS P.LTD. SF-2, AGRAWAL AVENUE OPP. NAVRANGPURA TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, CG ROAD AHMEDABAD-380 009 # ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACI 4327 B ( #& / APPELLANT ) .. ( '#& / RESPONDENT & CROSS OBJECTOR ) REVENUE BY : SHRI V.K. SINGH, SR.DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. DIVATIA, AR () *+ / DATE OF HEARING 07/03/2018 ,-./ *+ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20/ 03 /2018 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INST ANCE OF THE REVENUE AGAINST THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-VIII, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 24/12/2014 ITA NO. 670/AHD /2015 & CO NO.59/AHD/2015 (BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. VS. IRM OFFSHORE & MARINE ENGINEERS P.LT D. ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 2 - ARISING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S.143(3) R.W. S.147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'T HE ACT') DATED 21/03/2013 CONCERNING ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS-OBJECTION IN THE REVENUES APP EAL WHICH SHALL BE DEALT WITH SEPARATELY. 2. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.1,00,34,261/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) UNDER S.145A OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF CENVAT CREDIT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FILED ITS R ETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2008-09. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR FRAMED UNDER S. 143(3) R.W.S.147 OF THE ACT, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,00,34,261/- T O THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY INVOKING SECTION 145A OF THE ACT. THE AO DECLINED TO AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSE SSEE FOLLOWS EXCLUSIVE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AND THUS THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,00 ,34,261/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNUTILIZED CENVAT CREDITS BEING NET DIFF ERENCE OF OPENING AND CLOSING BALANCE OF UNUTILIZED CENVAT CREDITS AT ITS DISPOSAL CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHILE VALUING THE CLOSING STO CK. THE AO CONCLUDED THAT IN VIEW OF THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145A OF THE ACT, THE SAID UNUTILIZED BALANCES OF CENVAT CREDIT REQUIRES TO BE ITA NO. 670/AHD /2015 & CO NO.59/AHD/2015 (BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. VS. IRM OFFSHORE & MARINE ENGINEERS P.LT D. ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 3 - INCLUDED IN THE CLOSING STOCK. THE ASSESSED INCOM E WAS ACCORDINGLY INCREASED BY THE AFORESAID AMOUNT. 4. IN THE FIRST APPEAL, THE CIT(A) DECIDED THE ISSU E IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITIONS SO MADE BY THE A O. THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: - 5.3 DECISION: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE AO NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD UN-UTILISED CENVAT CREDITS IN THE BALANCE SHEET . IT HAD AN OPENING BALANCE OF RS.24,55,222/- AND CLOSING BALANCE OF RS .L,24,89,483/-. IT WAS HELD BY HIM THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION USA TH E DIFFERENCE OF RS.1,00,34,261/- WAS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CLOSING STOCK OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. HE HELD THAT SINCE, IT WAS IN THE NATURE O F INCOME ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE THE SAME HAD TO BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT ON THE OTHER HAND HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT W AS FOLLOWING EXCLUSIVE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING. THE BALANCE IS REFLECTED IN T HE BALANCE SHEET WERE DEBIT BALANCES AND NOT CREDIT BALANCES REPRESENTING THE E XCISE DUTY COLLECTED BY THE SUPPLIERS OF THE GOODS. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE A PPELLANT WAS A MANUFACTURER AND THE PROJECT MANUFACTURED OR SUBJECT TO EXCISE D UTY. WHENEVER, MATERIAL WAS PURCHASED FROM THE MANUFACTURER SUPPLIERS CHAR GE EXCISE DUTY. THE EXCISE DUTY CHARGED BY SUPPLIER FROM THE APPELLANT IS UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCHARGING THEIR EXCISE TAX LIABILITY WHICH ARE AS SEPARATELY DISCLOSED. THE APPELLANT IS MAKING MAJORITY OF THE SALES BY WAY OF EXPORT SALES OF WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECTED TO COLLECTION OF EXCISE ACCORDINGLY, THE EXCISE DUTY PAID ON PURCHASES REMAINED UN-UTILISED AND HENCE BALANCE RE MAINED OUTSTANDING. IT IS NOT INCLUDING EXCISE RECEIVABLE IN THE OPENING OR T HE CLOSING STOCK. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE EFFECT OF INCLUDING THE EXCISE D UTY WOULD BE NEUTRAL TO PROFIT. THE UNUTILISED BENEFIT OF THE EXCISE DUTY IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF INCOME TILL THE TIME THE BENEFIT IS ACTUALLY AVAILED. THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ITA NO. 670/AHD /2015 & CO NO.59/AHD/2015 (BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. VS. IRM OFFSHORE & MARINE ENGINEERS P.LT D. ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 4 - BALANCE APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET IS NOT AN IN COME ACCOUNT BUT ON EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT AND THUS, INSTEAD OF CHARGING T HE AMOUNT AS AN EXPENDITURE, THE AO HAS TREATED THE SAME AS INCOME WHICH WAS GROSSLY INCORRECT. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE O N THE JUDGEMENT OF HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SHRIRAM HON DA POWER EQUIPMENT LTD (SUPRA) AND INDO NIPPON CHEMICAL COMPANY LIMITE D (SUPRA). AFTER CONSIDERING, THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT, IT IS NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN FOLLOWING EXCLUSIVE METHOD FOR VALUING THE INVENTOR Y OF GOODS AND THERE WAS A CREDIT BALANCE OF UNUTILIZED MODVAT / CENVAT. THE M AJOR PRODUCTION OF THE APPELLANT IS EXPORTED AND THE SAME IS NOT CHARGEABL E TO EXCISE. SOME PART OF THE EXCISE DUTY INCURRED IN PURCHASE OF THE GOODS R EMAINED UNUTILISED AND IS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE APPELLANT COM PANY. THE SAME CAN BE UTILISED WHENEVER THERE IS SOME EXCISABLE GOODS WHI CH IS SOLD IN INDIA. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE APPELLANT CANNOT CLAIM REFUND FOR SUCH CREDIT RECEIVABLE. IT IS NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS FOLLOWING SIMILAR P OLICY IN THE PRECEDING YEARS. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO THAT THE CREDIT OF MODVA T / CENVAT IS AN INCENTIVE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE APPELLANT CANNOT CL AIM THE REFUND ON THIS ACCOUNT IF DUE TO SOME CIRCUMSTANCES INDUSTRY HAS TO BE CLO SED. THE VIEW HAS BEEN UPHELD BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF INDO NIPPON CHEMICALS LTD. [261 ITR 275]. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPR EME COURT THAT MODVAT CREDIT WAS AN IRREVERSIBLE CREDIT AVAILABLE TO MANU FACTURERS AND WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO INCOME WHICH WAS LIABLE TO BE TAXED UNDER THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE MODVAT / CENVAT CREDIT BALANCE AVAILABLE WITH THE A SSESSEE IS NEITHER INCOME NOR ANY INCENTIVE OR SUBSIDY WHICH CAN BE CO NSIDERED AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. AS REGARDS, THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 145A WHICH M ANDATORILY PRESCRIBES THE VARIATION OF INVENTORY BY INCLUSIVE METHOD, THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE EFFECT OF INCLUDING EXCISE DUTY IN RELATION OF THE STOCK WOULD BE REVENUE NEUTRAL AS THE SAME WOULD ALSO BE INCLUD ED IN THE PURCHASES. THEREFORE, THERE WOULD BE INCREASE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE RESULT WOULD BE NEUTRAL. ITA NO. 670/AHD /2015 & CO NO.59/AHD/2015 (BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. VS. IRM OFFSHORE & MARINE ENGINEERS P.LT D. ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 5 - HONOURABLE, ITAT BENCH OF AHMEDABAD IN A DECISION I N THE CASE OF ALPANIL INDUSTREIS VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.L69/AHD/2005 AND 170/AHD/2005 FOR A.Y.I999-2000 & 2000-01 HAS DISCUSSED THE PRINCIPLE RELATED TO VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK U/S. 145A OF THE ACT AND IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO QUOTE THE FINDING OF THE HONOURABLE BENCH WHICH CLARIFIES THE ISSUE C OMPLETELY. '17. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE DISPUTE IS REGARDING VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK IN VIEW OF THE INSERTION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145A OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCLUDED THE ELEMENT OF E XCISE DUTY WHICH WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON HIS PURCHASES OF RAW MATERIAL, I N VIEW OF NON INCLUSION OF THIS EXCISE DUTY IN RESPECT OF WHICH MODVAT CREDIT WAS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), INCOME OF RS.26,95,884/- WAS UNDERSTATED BY THE ASS ESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT BY INCLUSION OF T HIS EXCISE DUTY IN THE CLOSING STOCK THERE WILL NO EFFECT IN THE PROFIT AS THE COR RESPONDING AMOUNT WILL ALSO BE THEN INCLUDED IN THE PURCHASES. THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE ARGUMENT RELIED UPON THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE INST ITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA IN ITS GUIDELINES, WHEREIN IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT FOLLOWING OF EITHER INCLUSIVE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING OR EXCLUSI VE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING WILL NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE PROFIT DISCLOSED BY THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ONLY EFFECT OF FOLLOWING INCLUSIVE METHOD WILL BE THAT THE EXCISE DUTY LIABILITY WILL APPEAR IN THE BALANCE SHEET WHICH WI LL BE ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B TO THE EXTENT NOT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FUR NISHING OF RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. THE ABOVE VIEW WAS ALSO EXPRESSED BY THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE DEPUTY COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BARODA VS. GUJARAT FLUORO-C HEMICALS LTD. IN ITA NO.3742/AHD/2002 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-00 ORDER DATE D28.09.2006. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE EFFECT OF SECTION 145A OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) BY WAY OF AN ILLUSTRATION CONCLUDED TH AT THERE WILL BE A DIFFERENCE IN THE PROFIT ON FOLLOWING INCLUSIVE AND EXCLUSIVE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOR EXCISE DUTY. IN THE ILLUSTRATION CIT ED IN THE ORDER, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOUND THE DIFF ERENCE AT RS.80/-. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN THE INCLUSIVE METHOD IN THE ILLUSTRATION, THE ASSESSEE' S PROFIT WORKED OUT TO RS.380/- WHEREAS IN THE EXCLUSIVE METHOD, THE ASSES SEE'S PROFIT COMES TO ITA NO. 670/AHD /2015 & CO NO.59/AHD/2015 (BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. VS. IRM OFFSHORE & MARINE ENGINEERS P.LT D. ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 6 - RS.300/-. THUS, THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF RS.80/- I N THE PROFIT. WE ON A CLOSER LOOK AT THE ILLUSTRATION FIND THAT THE DIFFERENCE H AS OCCURRED DUE TO AN ERROR BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IN NOT CONSIDERING THE EXCISE DUTY EXPENDITURE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS OBS ERVED FROM THE ILLUSTRATION THAT ASSESSEE HAS COLLECTED EXCISE DUTY OFRS.180/- BY UTILIZING THE RAW MATERIAL ON WHICH EXCISE DUTY OF RS.100/- WAS PAID TO THE GO VERNMENT. THUS, THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO PAY A FURTHER EXCISE DUTY OF RS.80/- TO THE GOVERNMENT. WHEN THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.80/- IS TAKEN INTO ACCOU NT IN THE ILLUSTRATION, GIVEN FOR INCLUSIVE METHOD THEN THE PROFIT AS PER INCLUSI VE METHOD ALSO WORKS OUT TO RS.300/- WHICH IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS PER EXCLUSIVE METHOD. FURTHER, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN THE ILLUSTRATION CITED IN HIS ORDER HAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR THE AMOUNT OF MODVAT UT ILISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PAYMENT OF EXCISE DUTY IN RESPECT OF RAW MATERIAL N OT UTILISED FOR MANUFACTURING. IN THE ILLUSTRATION, THE LEARNED COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS SHOWN THAT ASSESSEE HAS UTILISED A MOUNT OFRS.180/- OUT OF AMOUNT OFRS.200/- OF EXCISE DUTY PAID ON PURCHASE A GAINST THE EXCISE DUTY LIABILITY OFRS.180 ON SALES. HOWEVER, THIS UTILIZAT ION OFRS.180/- WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF STOCK WHICH WAS NOT USED FOR MANUFACTURING ALSO TO THE EXTENT OF RS.80/-. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IGNORED THE FACT THAT IF IN FUTURE THE CLOSING STOC K IS NOT UTILISED FOR MANUFACTURING, THEN THE MODVAT CREDIT UTILISED WOUL D BE REVERSED AND THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE FURTHER LIABLE TO PAY RS.80/- TO THE GOVERNMENT. IN A NUTSHELL THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APP EALS) ARRIVED AT A WRONG CONCLUSION BECAUSE OF NOT CONSIDERING THE ASS ESSEE'S LIABILITY FOR UTILIZATION OF MODVAT CREDIT IN RESPECT OF UNCONSUM ED RAW MATERIAL. THE ISSUE CAN BE LOOKED INTO FROM YET ANOTHER ANGLE. SECTION 145A REQUIRES REVALUATION OF NOT INVENTORY ALONE BUT ALSO REQUIRES REVALUATIO N OF PURCHASE AND SALES. ON REVALUATION OF PURCHASE BY INCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY IN RESPECT OF WHICH MODVAT CREDIT IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, T HE PURCHASE OF THE ASSESSEE WILL INCREASE RESULTING IN CORRESPONDING DECREASE I N THE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT VALUE OF CLOSING STO CK IS CREDITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT TO SET OFF THE VALUE OF UNCONSUMED ITEMS OF PURCHASE AND THEREFORE, BOTH SHOULD HAVE SAME BASIS CANNOT BE CO NTROVERTED. THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THIS THEORY IS THAT WHEN THE MODVAT VA LUE IS LESS THAN THE COST THEN EFFECTIVELY UNREALISED LOSS IS ALLOWED AS A DE DUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLES. IN THE INSTANT CASE, T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN REVALUING ONLY CLOSING STOCK SO AS TO INCLUDE THE AMOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY PAID ON PURCHASE WITHOUT REVALUING THE CORRESP ONDING PURCHASES. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE GUIDELINES EXPLAINED BY THE I CAI AND FIND OURSELVES IN ITA NO. 670/AHD /2015 & CO NO.59/AHD/2015 (BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. VS. IRM OFFSHORE & MARINE ENGINEERS P.LT D. ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 7 - AGREEMENT THEREWITH THAT THERE WILL NOT BE ANY EFFE CT ON THE PROFIT OF LOSS ARRIVED AT EITHER BY FOLLOWING INCLUSIVE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING OR EXCLUSIVE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOR EXCISE DUTY. THE ONLY EFFE CT WILL BE THAT THE EXCISE DUTY PAYABLE ON CLOSING STOCK OF FINISHED GOODS WIL L BE TO THE EXTENT NOT DEPOSITED WITH THE GOVERNMENT BEFORE THE DUE DATE O F FURNISHING OF RETURN WILL BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF P ROVISION OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION MADE HEREINABOVE , IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THERE WILL BE NO EFFECT IN THE TAXABLE PRO FIT OF THE ASSESSEE BY INCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY PAID ON PURCHAS ES IN THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK OF RAW MATERIAL, WHETHER AS RAW MATERIAL OR A S FORMING PART OF WORK-IN PROGRESS OR FINISHED GOODS. WE THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE IN BOTH THE YEAR UNDER AP PEAL AND ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE.' THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF FHE JURISDICTIONAI BENCH OF 1 TAT ARE CLEAR AND, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNUTILISE D CENVAT / MODVAT CREDIT CAN BE MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE APPE LLANT. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A. O. IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWED. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A), T HE REVENUE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A). 6. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSE E AND LD.DR FOR THE REVENUE, WE NOTE THE ASSERTIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE HAS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED EXCLUSIVE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING WITH DUE CERTIFICATION BY THE TAX AUDITOR FOR RECORDING THE INVENTORY WHICH IS SUBJECT MATTER OF DISPUTE IN VALUATION. WE ALSO NO TICE THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ADOPTING INCLUSIVE METHOD OF ACCOUN TING WILL ALSO NOT ALTER THE RESULTANT PROFITS AND SUCH CHANGE OF ACCO UNTING WILL BE A REVENUE ITA NO. 670/AHD /2015 & CO NO.59/AHD/2015 (BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. VS. IRM OFFSHORE & MARINE ENGINEERS P.LT D. ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 8 - NEUTRAL EXERCISE OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. HAVING R EGARD TO THESE FACTS, WE CONCUR WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A). IT IS N OT GAIN SAYING THAT UNUTILIZED CENVAT CREDIT ONLY REPRESENTS THE AVAILA BILITY OF EXCISE CREDIT AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE END O F THE YEAR ELIGIBLE TO BE SET OFF AGAINST FUTURE LIABILITY THEREFORE, APPAR ENTLY, THE UNUTILIZED CENVAT CREDIT CANNOT BE ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSES OF VALUATION OF INVENTORIES IN SPHERE OF S.145A OF THE ACT. IN TH ESE FACTS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGEMENT OF T HE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR.CIT VS. GUJARAT GAS CO .LTD. IN TAX APPEAL NO.90 OF 2017 DATED 07/02/2017. 7. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION AND IN THE L IGHT OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN REVENUE S APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN PRESSED FOR SMALLNESS OF THE AMOUNT INVOLVED I N THE ISSUES INVOLVED. THUS, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED AS NOT PRESSED OWNING TO SMALLNESS OF QUANTUM IN THE CONTEXT. ITA NO. 670/AHD /2015 & CO NO.59/AHD/2015 (BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. VS. IRM OFFSHORE & MARINE ENGINEERS P.LT D. ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 9 - 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND CROSS O BJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 20 / 03 /2018 SD/- SD/- ( ) ( ) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 20/ 03 /2018 3..(,.(../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'!# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. #& / THE APPELLANT 2. '#& / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 456+ 7+ / CONCERNED CIT 4. 7+ ( ) / THE CIT(A)-2, AHMEDABAD 5. 89:+(56 , 56 / , 4 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. :;) / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, '8++ //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 7.3.18 (DICTATION-PAD PAGE S ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 8.3.18 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S. 20.3.18 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 20.3.18 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER