Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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