Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law/2018-2019/3481

Whether the transportation cost incurred for Goods sold form factory to customer is to be included in assessable value?
Case:JOST’S ENGINEERING CO. LTD.Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-II          
Citation: 2017 (7) G.S.T.L. 344 (Tri. – Mumbai)
Issue:Whether the transportation cost incurred for Goods sold form factory to customer is to be included in assessable value?
Brief facts:The brief facts of the case are that the appellants cleared their excisable goods from factory gate but did not show freight, transportation charges separately in excise invoice. They had collected freight and transportation charges either through commercial bills or debit notes.
Appellant’s contention:Shri RoshilNachani, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the issue whether the transportation charges is includible in the assessable value in a case where the goods were sold from the factory has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd.2015 (324) E.L.T. 670(S.C.) at least for the period from 1-7-2000 to 31-3-2003. The present case involved the period from July, 2000 to March, 2003. He also placed reliance on the Tribunal decision in the case of KappacPharma Ltd. 2017-TIOL-305-CESTAT-MUM.
Respondent’s Contention and Reasoning of Judgement:Shri M.R. Melvin, ld. Supdt. (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order.
After carefully considering the submission made by both sides and perusing the records, the bench find from the impugned order that the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that transportation charges collected by the appellants is required to be included in the assessable value by giving the following finding :-
“I have gone through the case records and written submission filed by the respondents and find that lower authority has failed to appreciate the facts that respondents had collected freight and transportation charges through commercial invoices issued by them and no duty was paid on the amounts so collected. Rule 5 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of excisable goods) Rules, 2000 is very clear and it is mandatory on the part of assessee to show the cost of transportation separately in the invoice for the goods cleared to exclude the actual cost of transportation from the assessable value. In this case, since the assessee recovered the freight and transportation cost through debit notes and not by showing separately in the invoices, they violated the Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of excisable goods) Rules, 2000 and they are not eligible for excluding the freight and transportation cost from the assessable value.”
From the above finding, it can be seen that the ld. Commissioner did not dispute in principle that whether in the case the goods were sold from the factory in terms of Rule 5. The transportation charges are excludible from the assessable value. However, he has confirmed the duty on the transportation charges only on the ground that the appellants have not shown the transportation charges separately in the invoice accordingly, they have violated Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000 accordingly, they are not eligible for excluding the freight and transporters cost from the assessable value. They find that in principle as decided by the Supreme Court in the case of IspatInds. (supra) when the goods are sold from the factory the transportation cost is not to be included in the assessable value, therefore the transportation cost per se in the given transaction is not includible in the assessable value. As regards the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) finding that it is not excludible due to the reason that the transportation cost was not shown separately in the invoice is only a procedural lapse. Whether the transportation cost shown separately in the invoice or charged separately by way of commercial invoice or debit note, the nature of the transportation cost is not under dispute. Therefore in our considered view, merely because the transportation cost is not shown separately in the invoice cannot be the reason for denying the exclusion of the same from the assessable value. The Authority therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
Decision:The application allowed.
Comment:The gist of the case is that the assessee had sold goods from factory to the customer as well as transported the same. The transportation cost was not shown in the invoice. The assessee had collected freight and transportation charges either through commercial bills or debit notes. The decision has been given in favor of assessee by giving reference of Ispat Industries Ltd.2015 (324) E.L.T. 670(S.C.).
 Prepared By:HimanshuBhimani
 
 
 
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