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/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