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 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