Click to Nomination Visit: tiolawards.in

2021-TIOL-2157-HC-DEL-VAT

JSB Healthcare Vs CGST (State)

DVAT - The Petitioner submits that the respondents are not allowing them to rectify and correct the details of Form C as per requirement of Rules 5 & 8 of Central Sales Tax Delhi Rules - They approached the Respondents to make corrections and rectifications in DVAT returns, but it has been declined - Respondents are directed to release Form-C to the Petitioner within two weeks to enable appropriate corrections to be carried out qua the relevant quarters - The Petitioner shall furnish a surety bond to secure the amounts in issue: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-714-CESTAT-DEL

Rajasthan Prime Steel Processing Center Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & CGST

CX - The assessee-company filed the presewnt appeal to contest O-i-A upholding Excise duty demand raised with interest and penalty in respect of the relevant period - The Commr.(A) held that central excise duty was payable on the amount received by the assessee from M/s. Honda Siel Car India Ltd. Honda India, for the loss suffered by the appellant on account of the cancellation of the contract for supply of auto parts used in the manufacture of vehicles. Further, though penalty under section 11AC (1)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 the Excise Act was confirmed, but it was not imposed under rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 the Excise Rules - The Commr.(A) also observed that the demand had not been correctly calculated as the amount should have been treated as cum-duty price in terms of section 4(1) of the Excise Act and, accordingly, the matter was remanded in order to quantify the amount of duty recoverable from the assessee with a further direction that the assessee could produce the relevant records for this purpose.

Held - The issue in the present appeal pertains to the amount which the assessee received from Honda India due to cancellation of the contract - This amount obviously was to make up for the reduced price which the appellant received from the sale of auto parts manufactured by the appellant - The Department alleges that this was in fact the balance consideration received by the appellant from Honda India under the guise of compensation and, therefore, should be included in the transaction value - It clearly transpires from the business arrangement that the assessee had received a substantial amount from Honda India, even though the terms of the contract did not provide for payment of any amount to the assessee if the contract of supply of auto parts was cancelled by Honda India - It is also worth noting that even for the subsequent AY, the assessee also claimed that it had to sell the auto parts as scrap since the contract was cancelled - It also transpires from the business arrangement between the appellant, Honda India and the buyers that the appellant received some amount from the buyers of scrap and some amount from Honda India for the value of the auto parts and there is no good reason as to why this amount received by the appellant from Honda India should not be included in the transaction value of the goods - The contention of the appellant that the amount cannot be included in the transaction value since the consideration must flow only from the buyer to the seller of goods, in view of the business arrangement arrived at in the present case, cannot be accepted - It is clear from the aforesaid paragraph that the price has been reduced by the assessee on account of competition in the market and there was no evidence of flow back of any additional consideration from the buyer of aerated water to the assessee - Hence there is no error in the order passed by the Commr.(A): CESTAT

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT