For purpose of claiming benefit of deduction of sum paid against liability of tax, duty, cess, fee, etc., year of payment was relevant and was only to be taken into account and Year in which Assessee incurred liability to pay such tax, duty, etc. had no relevance and could not be linked with matter of giving benefit of deduction u/s 43B.

Held In the present case, the Assessee had no option but to keep the account in respect of each excisable product (evident from the mandate in Rule 173G that it “shall keep and account current”). The latter part of the main rule makes it clear beyond any doubt that the Assessee had no choice in the obligation, and could not remove the goods manufactured by it, unless sufficient amounts are kept in credit. The Rule makers pragmatically directed that “sufficient” amounts ought to be maintained in the account, to cover the removals. Therefore, at any given point of time, there had to be an excess in the account, if the Assessee were to remove the goods. Each clearance mentions the quantum of goods, and the duty amount, which was apparently reconciled at the end of the period, and shortfalls if any were appropriated from the account. The excess credit was likewise adjusted for the next day’s clearances. The point to be underlined was that there was no choice, and the amounts related to the Assessee’s duty liability, falling within the description u/s 43-B. For the purpose of claiming benefit of deduction of the sum paid against the liability of tax, duty, cess, fee, etc., the year of payment is relevant and is only to be taken into account. The year in which the Assessee incurred the liability to pay such tax, duty, etc. had no relevance and could not be linked with the matter of giving benefit of deduction u/s 43B of the Act. (Para 17)