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/2015-16/2736

Whether rental, repair/testing charges for cylinder includible in the assessable value of gases being sold?

Case:-COMMISSIONER OF C. EXCISE, ALLAHABAD VERSUSINDIAN AIR GASES LTD.
 
Citation:-2015 (318) E.L.T. 434 (Tri. - Del.)
 
Brief facts:- The respondent manufacture industrial gases like Medical grade oxygen gas and liquid nitrogen. The gases are sold by the respondent in their own cylinders and also in the cylinders brought by the customers. In the case where the gases are sold by the respondent in their own cylinders, the respondent charged an amount towards cylinder rental in addition to the value of the goods. In the cases where the gases are sold in the cylinders belonging to the customers, wherever the customers request for testing and repair of the cylinder, it is done by the respondent and for which they charge some amounts which are in addition to the price for the gas supplied. The Department is of the view that the cylinder rental charges in the cases where the gases are supplied in the appellant’s own cylinders and the cylinder repair and servicing/testing charges in the cases where the gases are supplied in the cylinders brought by the customers would be includible in the assessable value of the goods. It is on this basis that for the period from July 2000 to October 2003, the Jurisdictional Joint Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 30th September 2004 confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 6,04,269/- against the respondent along with interest and imposed penalty of equal amount on them under Section 11AC. On appeal being filed to Commissioner (Appeals) against this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order-in-appeal dated 2nd March 2005 set aside the Joint Commissioner’s order and allowed the appeal. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed by the Revenue.
 
Appellant’s contention:- Shri Pramod Kumar, learned Jt. CDR, assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds of appeal and cited the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Ghaziabad v. Modi Gas & Chemicals Ltd. reported in 2010 (261)E.L.T.1154 (Tri. - Del.),wherein following the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Kota Oxygen (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2000 (121)E.L.T.369 (Tribunal)it was held that the cylinder rentals in the cases where the gases are supplied in the cylinders owned by the manufacturer would be includible in the assessable value of the goods, that against the Tribunal’s judgment in the case of Kota Oxygen (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur (supra), the assessee had filed an appeal before the Apex Court which had been dismissed and in view of the Apex Court’s judgment in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala reported in 2001 (129)E.L.T.11 (S.C.), the Supreme Court’s order dismissing the civil appeal in the case of Kota Oxygen (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur (supra) would become a binding precedent. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order is not correct.
 
Respondent’s contention:- Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the respondent, pleaded that the fact that the gases manufactured by the respondent are being sold by them either in their own cylinders or in the cylinders brought by the customers shows that the gases manufactured are as marketable as such without being packed in any containers, that taking this fact into account, the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Indore v. Grasim Industries Ltd.reported in 2014 (304)E.L.T.310 (Tri.-Del.)relying upon the Apex Court’s judgments in the cases of Hindustan Polymers v. CCE reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T.165 (S.C.)and also the judgment in case of Union of India v.Bombay Tyre International Ltd. reported in 1983 (14) E.L.T.1896 (S.C.), had held that the cylinder rentals or cylinder repair/testing charges would not be includible in the assessable value of the gases, that in these judgments of the Tribunal, the Tribunal also considered its earlier judgment in the case of Kota Oxygen (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur (supra) relied upon by the Tribunal in its judgment in the case of CCE, Ghaziabad v. Modi Gas & Chemicals Ltd. (supra), that the Tribunal’s judgment in the case of Kota Oxygen (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur (supra) is based on the fact that, the assessee were charging amounts towards cylinder rental and cylinder maintenance charges even from the customers who purchased oxygen gas manufactured by them in their own cylinders and the amounts charged as cylinder rental and cylinder maintenance charges were several times higher than the actual cost incurred and on this basis, the Revenue had alleged that part of the price of oxygen gas was being recovered as cylinder rental and maintenance charge and this allegation had been upheld by the Tribunal, and that in the present case there is no such allegation and, therefore, the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Kota Oxygen (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur (supra) is not applicable. He, therefore, pleaded that there is no infirmity in the impugned order.
 
Reasoning of judgement:- The undisputed facts are that the respondent manufacture Medical grade oxygen gas and liquid nitrogen and sell the gases either in their own cylinders in which case they charge, in addition to the value of the goods, cylinder rental charges or in the cylinders brought by the customers, in which case, on the request of the customers, wherever the cylinders are tested or repaired, the cylinder testing/repair charges are charged in addition to the value of the goods. The point of dispute is as to whether in these circumstances, the cylinder rental charges and cylinder repair/testing charges would be includible in the assessable value of the gases being sold. Since from the facts of the case it is clear that the goods are marketable as such without being packed in any special container as the same can be sold even in the cylinders brought by the customers, following the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Indore v. Grasim Industries Ltd. (supra), cylinder rental charges and cylinder testing and repair charges would not be includible in the assessable value of the goods. As regards the Revenue’s reliance on the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Kota Oxygen (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur (supra) which has been upheld by the Apex Court, in that case the assessee was charging fixed amount towards rental and cylinder maintenance charges even from the customers who purchased oxygen gas manufactured by the assessee in their own cylinders and there was also allegation that the amounts charged as cylinder rental and cylinder maintenance were several times higher than the actual cost incurred in this regard and on that basis the Revenue had alleged that part of the value of the oxygen gas was being recovered as cylinder rental/maintenance charges and this allegation of the Revenue have been upheld by the Tribunal. In the present case, there is no such allegation. In view of this, the Tribunal’s judgment in the case of Kota Oxygen (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur (supra) is not applicable.
 
In view of the above discussion, they do not find any merit in the Revenue’s appeal. The same is dismissed.
 
Decision:-Appeal dismissed.
 
Comment:- The analogy of the case is that relying in case of Grasim Industries Ltd. cylinder rental charges and cylinder testing and repair charges would not be includible in the assessable value of the goods. This is for the reason that Medical grade oxygen gas and liquid nitrogen gas were marketable as such without being packed in any special container. Hence, Repair/rental charges were not includible in assessable value.
 
Prepared by:- Monika Tak

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