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 Laws/2012-13/1317

Whether the freight charged on equalized basis from the place of removal to the place of delivery deductible from the assessable value?

Citation:- 2012-TIOL-1602-CESTAT-DEL
 
CASE:-Banmore Cable and Conductors Vs C.C.E., Indore
 
Issue:-Whether the freight charged on equalized basis from the place of removal to the place of delivery deductible from the assessable value?
 
Brief Facts:-The Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of ACSR/AAA Conductors. He has been charging freight including transit insurance on equalized basis of length of cable sold i.e. at per kilometer rate, irrespective of the distance factor. The invoice issued by the appellant to his customers, mentioned the freight, but on equalized basis. The appellant while paying excise duty on the goods cleared claimed exclusion of the equalized freight from the assessable value and did not pay duty on the freight amount. As per the Revenue, this has been in violation of Rule 5 of the central excise valuation (Determination) of price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 read with section 4(1)(b) as the freight and insurance shown in the invoices is not the actual freight but the equalized freight which is not deductible while determining assessable value of the goods. Accordingly the show cause notice was issued to the appellant which culminated into confirmation of the demand of Rs. 95,253/- along with interest in terms of section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and also imposed penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001.The appellant filed appeal against order in original but it was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Thereafter, appellant filed appeal before Tribunal along with stay application against order in appeal.
 
Appellant’s contention:-  The appellant contended that the freight amount from the place of removal to the place of delivery is to be deductible when it is separately indicated in the invoice and even when it is charged on equalized basis.
 
Respondent’s contention:-The Respondent reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and emphasized that since during the period of dispute, the Rule 5 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 provided for exclusion of actual cost of transportation from the place of removal upto the place of delivery and since the invoices do not show the actual freight, but the freight on equalized basis i.e. averaged freight charged at per kilometer rate, its exclusion from the assessable value has been rightly disallowed.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:- The arguments on both sides have been considered. The point of dispute is as to whether the freight though charged in addition to the price of the goods and shown separately in the invoices, but charged on equalized basis, is excludible from the assessable value. According to the department, only actual freight can be excluded and not the equalized freight. As per the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Bombay Tyre International Ltd., it has been held that the Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 specifically provides for the exclusion of the cost of freight from the place of removal to the place of delivery when it is charged from the customer in addition to the price and is mentioned separately in the invoices. The provisions of Rule 5 can be said to be analogous to the provisions of sub section (2) of section 4, as it stood prior to 1.07.2000 and hence the cost of transportation from the place of removal to the place of delivery is to be deducted from the assessable value even if charged on equalised basis. Reliance has also been placed on the decision given in following cases in which it was held that cost of transportation is not to be included when the sale price is inclusive of equalized freight:
 
·         VIP Industries Ltd. vs. C.C.E
·         Magestic Auto Ltd. vs. C.C.E.
 
In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is not sustainable and the same aside. The appeal and the stay application both are allowed. 
 
Decision:- Appeal allowed.
 
Comment:The analogy drawn from this case is that freight charge from the place of removal to the place of delivery cannot be included in the assessable value even if the said freight is calculated on equalized basis due to specific provision given under Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.
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