Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2016-17/3198

Entry tax payable before clearance of goods, whether includible in assessable value?

Case-INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-I
 
Citation-2016 (336) E.L.T. 660 (Tri. - Del.)

Brief Facts-These appellants filed this appeal against the order dated 10-5-2006 of Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur, II. The Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of petroleum products and clear the same through various storage terminals. The appellants were having central excise registration for bonded warehouse at Salawas, Rajasthan. They were receiving petroleum products under bond from outside the State of Rajasthan. There was an entry tax of 1%. When the appellants cleared goods from warehouse they paid central excise duty as well as the entry tax. The Revenue entertained the view that since the entry tax is payable before clearance of goods, the same is includible in the assessable value. Proceedings initiated against appellant concluded in the order confirming demand of differential duty and imposing penalty. On appeal the order was confirmed. On further appeal the appellant is before us.

Appelants Contention-Learned Counsel for the appellant Shri L.P. Asthana submitted the entry tax is collected by the appellant at the time of sale only and not when the goods entered the State of Rajasthan. The clarifications dated 5-7-2002 and 18-7-2002 make it clear about the method of collection of this levy. The entry tax is collected from the customer along with sale price of goods. As such, the learned Counsel pleaded that the said tax is deductible in terms of Section 4(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
 
Respondents Contention-Learned AR Shri S. Nunthuk reiterated the findings in the impugned order.

Reasoning Of Judgement-The tribunal have heard both the sides and perused appeal records. The includibility of entry tax in the assessable value of goods cleared by the appellant from the bonded warehouse in Rajasthan is in dispute. The reason for the inclusion, mentioned in the impugned order, is that since the tax is on entry of goods the same is to be part of assessable value for clearance from warehouse later. They find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not appreciate the facts of the case in correct legal perspective. The entry tax, as the name suggest, is on the entry of goods into Rajasthan. But the State Government categorically stated that the same can be collected and paid on the basis of prevalent market value of goods. The entry tax can be recovered through invoices at the time of sale. They find that the value under Section 4 does not include the amount of the duty of excise, sales tax and other taxes, if any, payable on such goods. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bombay Tyre International, 1984 (17)E.L.T.329 (S.C.) held that sales tax, turnover tax and octroi where payable/paid should be allowed deduction. In appellant’s own case for the earlier periods on the same issue, the Commissioner after de novo proceedings vide his order dated 31-3-2014 dropped the demand. The learned Commissioner drew a parallel based on exclusion of excise duty from transaction value. Excise duty though on manufacture is collected at the time of clearance. Here the entry tax though on entry is collected on sale of goods inside the State. On careful examination of the above facts and legal position, tribunal find that the entry tax paid by the appellant is not includible in the value for excise duty. Accordingly, they set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
 
Decision-Appeal allowed
 
Comment-The crux of the case is that according to Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 Excise duty, sales tax and other taxes payable are not includible in assessable value. The similar facts are supported by the decision in the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bombay Tyre International.Therefore, such entry tax not includible in value of goods.

Prepared By-Neelam Jain
 

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com