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/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