Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

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