Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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