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/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