Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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