Commissioner of Income Tax vs P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar

There is inordinate delay of 1027 days in filing of the review petitions and no satisfactory explanation has been offered. Even otherwise, we do not find any ground, whatsoever, to entertain the same. The review petition is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on the merits. Consequently, we are of the view that the source of the duty drawback is the business of the industrial undertaking which is to manufacture and export goods out of raw material that is imported and on which customs duty is paid. The entitlement for duty drawback arises from section 75(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the relevant notification issued by the Central Government in that regard.

Learned counsel for the revenue also drew our attention to Pandian Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, . However, on a reading of the judgment we find that that also deals with section 80HH of the Act and does not lay down any principle different from Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka Vs. Sterling Foods, Mangalore, . In fact, in Pandian Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reliance has been placed on Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat-II, Ahmedabad, and the decision seems to suggest, as, we have held above, that the expression "derived from an industrial undertaking" is a step removed from the business of the industrial undertaking.

In view of the law laid down and explained by various decisions, in our opinion, no substantial question of law arises for consideration.

The appeal is dismissed. We assess counsel's fee at Rs. 10,000. The revenue will deposit this amount by a cheque drawn in favour of the Registrar General of this court within four weeks from today.

List for compliance on 24-3-2008.