News Update

CPI gets Rs 11 Cr tax notice for using old PAN numberGST - Penalty demand of Rs.3731 crores - A person who would fall within the purview of sub-section (1-A) of s.122 should necessarily be a taxable person who retains the benefits of transactions: HCFATP hand-wrings over slow regulation of crypto by member-countriesGST - Threatening and pressurising petitioner who is merely an employee - Highly unconscionable and disproportionate on the part of the officer: HCGST - Same relief was claimed in earlier petition which was withdrawn unconditionally - Fresh petition seeking same relief is barred by the estoppel principle: HCIncome tax hands over Rs 1700 Cr tax demand to Congress PartyGST - Neither SCN nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, hence cannot be sustained: HCStage-2 of Vikram-1 orbital rocket successfully test-firedGST - Non-application of mind - If reply was unsatisfactory, details could have been sought - Record does not reflect that such exercise was done - Matter remitted: HCHouthis claim UK has not capability to intercept their hypersonic missilesGST - Merely because a taxpayer has not filed returns for some period does not mean that registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when returns were filed and taxpayer was compliant: HCIsraeli forces kill 200 Palestinians at Gaza medical complex & arrest over 1000GST - Petitioner's reply, although terse, is not taken into account while passing assessment orders - Petitioner put on terms, another opportunity provided: HCUnveil One Nation; One Debt Code; One Compliance Rule for Centre & StatesChina moves WTO against US tax subsidies for EVs & renewable energyMore on non-doms - The UK Spring Budget 2024 (See TII Edit)Training Program for Cambodian civil servants commences at MussoorieCBIC revises tariff value of edible oils, gold & silverCBIC directs all Customs offices to remain open on Saturday & SundayI-T- Once the citizen deposits the tax upon coming to know of his liability, it cannot be said that he has deliberately or willfully evaded the depositing of tax and interest in terms of Section 234A can be waived: HCHouthis attack continues in Red Sea; US military shoots down 4 dronesCus - No Cess is payable when Basic Customs Duty is found to be Nil: CESTAT
 
CX - In absence of any restrictive clause in agreement, amount received by respondent towards pre-delivery inspection, erection/installation/commissioning charges are not includible in AV: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, AUG 25, 2016: THIS is a Revenue appeal filed more than a decade ago.

The respondent is a manufacturer of "monoliths/signages" and during April 1999 to December 2003 cleared the goods on payment of duty to the sites of BPCL and IOCL and erected and commissioned the same as per the contract.

The respondent had recovered freight charges on account of bringing such goods and also charged various amounts for erection, commissioning, installation and third party inspection charges.

It is the case of the Revenue that these charges have to be included in the value for discharge of central excise duty.

The original authority confirmed the demand but the Commissioner(A) set aside the same and hence the CCE, Mumbai-IV filed an appeal before the CESTAT.

The AR submitted that the goods, which are described as monoliths, are in fact packed in bundles and cleared in packages form which would mean that they are not monoliths or signages but parts and components; that the charges for erection and commissioning and for pre-delivery inspection charges, which has been collected by the respondent are includible in the AV as post July 2000, transaction value regime came onto the scene. Board's circular dated 1.7.2002 which clarified that amounts collected for erection, installation and commissioning charges are includible in the assessable value for discharge of excise duty is also relied upon.

The respondent submitted that the issue is covered in their favour by the decisions in Apollo Tyres Ltd. - 2003-TIOL-11-CESTAT-BANG and Thermax Ltd. - 2002-TIOL-205-SC-CX.

The Bench observed -

"6. On perusal of the sample invoices and the contract entered by the respondent with BPCL and IOCL, we find that the invoice prepared by the respondent clearly indicates the goods which were cleared were described as "monoliths" in knocked down condition (CKD). The discharge of duty liability is also on the entire value of monoliths/signages. This would indicate that what was cleared from the factory premises of the respondent was a complete monolith. The contract specifically indicates that erection and commissioning of the said monolith can be undertaken by the respondent for an additional payment. It is nowhere indicative in the contract that the respondent was obliged to do the said installation and erection and no one else was to be appointed for such work. In the absence of any restrictive clause in the agreement, we find that the amount received by the respondent towards erection/installation/commissioning charges are not includible in the assessable value so also the amounts received for pre-delivery inspection charges, as these charges are not attributable for manufacture of goods."

Holding that the impugned order is correct and legal and did not suffer from any infirmity, the Revenue appeal was rejected.

(See 2016-TIOL-2187-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023