Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

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