TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether freight and allied charges were includible in the assessable value on the footing that the sale was completed at the buyer's premises and the transaction was a FOR sale; (ii) whether the extended period of limitation was invocable and consequential penalty could be sustained.
Issue (i): Whether freight and allied charges were includible in the assessable value on the footing that the sale was completed at the buyer's premises and the transaction was a FOR sale.
Analysis: The goods were explosives requiring delivery through specialised vehicles in compliance with statutory conditions, and the appellant itself undertook transportation and risk during transit. In such a factual setting, the transaction could not be treated as a simple ex-factory sale. The contractual arrangement had to be read with the surrounding statutory and commercial realities, and the separation of freight as a distinct charge did not change the character of the sale. The transaction was therefore treated as a FOR sale, with the place of removal being the buyer's premises, making all costs up to that stage includible in the assessable value, subject to permissible deductions.
Conclusion: The freight and related charges were includible in the assessable value, and this issue was decided against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable and consequential penalty could be sustained.
Analysis: The issue of includibility of freight in such transactions had seen conflicting judicial views, and the appellant's method of billing varied across customers depending on the contractual arrangement. The transportation obligation also arose from statutory requirements, which supported a bona fide interpretative dispute rather than deliberate suppression. In the absence of concrete evidence of intent to evade duty, the ingredients necessary for invoking the extended period were not established. Once the extended period failed, the penalty could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable, and the penalty was not imposable, in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The duty demand was upheld on merits but confined to the normal limitation period, with penalty set aside and the matter remanded for recomputation accordingly.
Ratio Decidendi: In a transaction for delivery of goods requiring mandatory transportation to the buyer's premises under the governing statutory regime, the sale may be treated as a FOR sale with the buyer's premises as the place of removal; however, a bona fide interpretative dispute and absence of deliberate suppression bar invocation of the extended period and consequential penalty.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
