Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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