Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law/2013-14/1994

Whether ground rent received for delay in taking delivery of goods sold is includible in the assessable value of product?

Case:-COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUT VERSUS SAIL BHAILAI STEEL PLANT

Citation:-2013(296) E.L.T. 400 (Tri.-Del.)

Brief Facts:-The respondent has a unit of Steel Authority of India Limited, a integrated steel plant, is engaged in the manu­facture of various iron and steel products, chargeable to Central Excise duty While the prime manufactured products of the respondent viz., angle, rails, rounds, etc., are sold through its branch sale offices situated at various places in India, other products like semis, defective/rejected iron and steel products and cuttings of iron and steel products are directly sold from respondent's plant as to buyers selected by tendering process. One of the conditions of the tenders for sale of defective/rejected material, issued by the material Sales Department is that on receipt of the sale order the buyer shall deposit the amount as per details indicated in the sale order by demand draft, the payment shall be made with 28 days from the date of sale order or within the time as stipulated in the sale order and that if the date of payment is extended on request of the buyers, buyer shall be liable to pay a 'ground rent' at the specified rates. If the payment is made between 29th day to 35th days from the date of sale order, the ' rent' payable shall be 0.5% of the sale value, if the payment is made between day to 42nd days from the date of sale order, the 'ground rent' payable shall 1.25% of the sale value, if the payment is made between 43rd day to 49th days from the date of sale order, the 'ground rent' payable shall be 2.25% of the sale value and if the payment is made between 50th day to 56th day from the date of sale order, the 'ground rent' payable shall be 3.5% of the sale value on price. The Department was of the view that the 'ground rent' being recovered by the res­pondent for period of delay in the making of payment is includible in the assess­able value, as this amount is being collected in connection with the sale of goods. On this basis a show cause notice dated 1-1-2004, was issued for demand of diffe­rential duty amounting to Rs. 14.13 lakhs in respect of sales of defective/rejected iron and steel products during period from Dec.'98 to June 2003 along with inter­est under Section 11AB and also for imposition of penalty on the respondent under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act. The show cause notice was adjudicated by Additional Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 17-3-2005 by which the duty demand as mentioned above, was confirmed along with interest and be­sides this, penalty of equal amount was imposed on them under Section 11AC. However on appeal being filed by the respondent against this order to Commis­sioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 18-7- 2005 set aside the Additional Commissioner's order and allowed the appeal, on the ground that while the original Adjudicating Authority has treated the amount being charged as 'ground rent', as storage charges and on this basis in­cludible in the assessable value, while a reading of Clause 11 of the tender indi­cates that amounts being collected are the charges of delayed payment and there is nothing to suggest that these are storage charges and that in terms of Apex Court's judgment in the case of Union of India v. Bombay Tyres reported in 1984 (17) E.L.T. 329 (S.C.), the amount paid on account of delayed payment is not in­cludible assessable value.
Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed by the Revenue. In respect of revenue's appeal, the respondent has filed cross-objections.

Appellant Contentions:-Ld. Departmental Representative, assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds of appeal and pleaded that the amount being charged as 'ground rent' is nothing but storage charges for the period of delay in lifting of goods sold, that storage charges incurred by the res­pondent prior to clearance of goods are includible in the assessable value, that in term of Apex Court judgment in the case of Bombay Tyres International Ltd. re­ported in 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.) the sales organizations expense upto the delivery of goods, interest on inventory and marketing/selling organization ex­pense are includible in the assessable value and that the amount being charged as 'ground rent' is the expense incurred on storage of goods prior to completion of sales and hence the same is includible in the assessable value and as such the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct.
 
Respondent Contentions:-The learned Counsel for the respondent defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and pleaded that the amount recovered as 'ground rent' is nothing but charges for delay in payment and as such the same are not includible in the assessable value.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:-We have considered the submission from both the sides and perused the records. The Para 6 of the show cause notice itself refers to Para 11(b) of the "terms and conditions for sale of material by tender from the stores department" and on the perusal of the same, it is clear that the amount being charged as 'ground rent' is for delay in making the payment by the buyers for the goods sold to them. This delay is counted from the date of sale order. The customer is expected to make the payment for the goods purchased by him within the period of 28 days from the date of sale order and if there is delay in making payment beyond 28 days, amounts at the rates varying from 0.5% of the sale price to 3.25% of the sale price are payable depending upon the period of delay. We do not find any basis for the Department's plea that the 'ground rent' is the storage charges for the period of delay in lifting of the goods by the customers. Thus the 'ground rent' is nothing but interest on receivables which is not includible in the assessa­ble value, in view of Apex Court's judgment in the case of Union of India v. MRF Ltd. reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.).
In view of this we do not find any merit in this appeal by the Reve­nue. The same is dismissed. The cross-objection also stands disposed of.
 
Decision:-Appeal dismissed.

Comment:- The essence of this case is that the ground rent is nothing but interest on receivables which is not includible in the assessa­ble value, in view of Apex Court's judgment in the case of Union of India v. MRF Ltd. reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.).


 

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