News Update

Unveil 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)Notorious history-sheeter Mukhtar Ansari succumbs to cardiac arrest in UP jailTraining Program for Cambodian civil servants commences at MussoorieNY imposes USD 15 congestion taxCBIC revises tariff value of edible oils, gold & silver45 killed as bus races into ravine in South AfricaCBIC directs all Customs offices to remain open on Saturday & SundayBankman-Fried jailed for 25 yrs in FTX scamI-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 dronesI-T- Secured creditor has priority charge over secured asset, over claims of I-T Department & other Departments; any excess amount recovered by Secured Creditor from auction of secured asset, over & above the dues payable to it, are to be remitted to the Departments: HCFederal Govt hands out USD 60 mn to rebuild collapsed bridge in BaltimoreI-T - Receipts of sale of scrap being part & parcel of activity and being proximate thereto would also be within ambit of gains derived from industrial undertaking for purpose of computing deduction u/s 80-IB: HCCanadian School Boards sue social media titans for 4 bn Canadian dollar in damagesI-T - Once assssee on year of reversal has paid taxes on excess provision and similar feature appeared in earlier years and assesee had payments for liquidated damages on delay of deliverables, no adverse inference can be drawn: HCFormer IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt jailed for 20 yrs for planting drugs to frame lawyerST - Software development service & IT-enabled service provided by assessee was exempt from tax during relevant period, by virtue of CBEC's Notification & Circular; demands raised for such period not sustainable: CESTATUN says Households waste across world is now at least one billion meals a dayCus - Order rejecting exporter's request for conversion of Shipping Bills on grounds that the same has been made by exporter beyond period of three months from date of Let Export Order in terms of CBEC Circular No. 36/2010-Cus : CESTATIndia, China hold fresh dialogue for complete disengagement on Western borders: MEACus - No Cess is payable when Basic Customs Duty is found to be Nil: CESTATThakur says India is prepared for 2036 OlympicsCX - As per settled law, a right acquired as result of a statutory provision, cannot be taken away retrospectively unless said statutory provision so provides or by necessary implication has such effect: CESTAT
 
CX - Since transfer of Cement pipes passes only at site, deduction relating to transportation, laying, joining, testing charges from invoice value not admissible u/s 4 of CEA, 1944: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, AUG 24, 2017: THIS is a Revenue appeal against the order passed by Commissioner(A), Aurangabad.

The respondent was supplier of Cement pipes for Wambhori Pipe Chari Project, Upper Pravara Canal, Sangamner Division for use thereof by the main contractor M/s Tapi Prestressed Products Ltd., Bhusaval.

It was the responsibility of the respondent manufacturer to manufacture the pipes at factory, transport them to the site, unload, shift and lower the same and lay & join the pipes at the site;that the pipes were to be handed over to the main contractor only after such activities were carried out.

The show-cause notice has brought out that the respondent had not determined the correct assessable value of the pipes cleared in the manner above. Inasmuch as when the respondent claimed deduction relating to transportation, laying, joining, testing charges from the invoice value received from the main contractor, revenue did not allow deduction thereof but alleged undervaluation of the pipes.

The Commissioner(A) set aside the order of the adjudicating authority.

In appeal, the AR submitted that the place of removal relating to the period in question in all the appeals was defined by law to be place where removal of the excisable goods was made and which is apparent from sub-section 3(c) of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CCE vs. Roofit Industries Ltd. - 2015-TIOL-87-SC-CX.

None was present for the respondent.

The Bench observed -

"5.1 When the notice issued by the authority below has brought clearly the facts of the contract and also place of removal where the respondent carried out certain activity over the goods cleared from the factory, there is no scope for the respondent to claim deduction since transfer of property of the goods did not pass at the factory gate but transfer thereof occurred after value addition made thereto at the site…"

Noting that the AR was right in taking support from the Apex Court judgment (supra), the CESTAT extracted paragraphs 12 and 14 of the said decision and emphasized that the Supreme Court had held that where there is clear intention of the buyer and seller to transfer property in goods to buyer at the premises of the latter and delivery of the goods has been done by virtue of section 19 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930, transfer of property of the goods shall pass only thereat under section 19 of the said Act.

And, therefore, the Revenue's appeals were allowed by setting aside the appellate order and restoring the adjudication order.

(See 2017-TIOL-3065-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