9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether charges recovered for testing, maintenance, and handling of gas cylinders should be included in the assessable value of gas supplied. Analysis: The appeals involved a dispute regarding the inclusion of charges for testing, maintenance, and handling of gas cylinders in the assessable value of gas supplied by the appellants to customers. The period in question was from 15-5-1980 to 16-3-1985. The appellants filled gas in cylinders belonging to customers and charged an additional sum of Rs. 44 per cylinder for testing, maintenance, and handling. The lower authorities did not allow the abatement of this sum, leading to the appeal. The appellants relied on a Bombay High Court judgment that held the cost of the buyer's cylinder, for which the manufacturer did not spend anything, should not be included in the assessable value. They argued that testing and maintenance of cylinders were statutory requirements under the Gas Cylinders Rules, 1981, making these costs an essential part of the cylinder cost itself. The appellants maintained that only a duly tested cylinder was suitable for packing acetylene gas. Regarding the charges for supervision, unloading, and loading of cylinders, the appellants acknowledged that these costs should be included in the assessable value based on a Supreme Court judgment. However, they did not press for the exclusion of these charges due to the minimal amount involved. The department contended that testing and maintenance costs of cylinders were essential ancillary processes of manufacturing acetylene gas, making them includible in the assessable value. The department argued that without incurring these costs, marketing acetylene gas would not be feasible. The Tribunal concluded that charges for testing and maintenance of buyer's cylinders should be excluded from the assessable value of the gas. However, they found the amount of Rs. 42 per cylinder claimed by the appellants to be excessive. The Tribunal directed the Assistant Collector to scrutinize the costing of these charges to ensure they were not inflated to divert the true price of the gas to cylinder costs. The Tribunal emphasized that a reasonable margin of profit on testing and maintenance activities was acceptable but beyond the actual costs incurred, no further exclusion from the assessable value should be allowed. The cross objection filed by the department did not seek additional relief and contained arguments already addressed in the judgment. Consequently, the Tribunal disposed of all appeals and the cross objection in accordance with its findings on the exclusion of testing and maintenance charges from the assessable value of gas supplied.
|
