2018 (9) TMI 123 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – Valuation – includibility of VAT in assessable value – Revenue was of the view that the VAT liability discharged by utilizing the investment subsidy granted in form 37B cannot be considered as VAT actually paid, for the purpose of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – Held that:- Identical issue decided by the Tribunal in the case of Shree Cements Ltd. V/s CCE, Alwar [2018 (1) TMI 915 – CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that There is no justification for inclusion in the assessable value, the VAT amounts paid by the assessee using VAT 37B Challans – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant.
– Excise Appeal No. 50716 of 2018 – A/52610/2018-EX[DB] – Dated:- 19-7-2018 – Mr. C L Mahar, Member (Technical) And Ms. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial) Shri Himanshu Bansal, Advocate for the Appellants Ms Tamana Aalam, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per: C L Mahar: The present appeal has been filed against order-in-appeal No. 391(SM) CE/JPR/
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
actually paid, for the purpose of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. Accordingly, the Revenue proceeded to include such subsidy amounts in the value of the goods cleared by the appellant and demanded the difference of the duty. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 3. With this background we heard Shri Himanshu Bansal, learned advocate for the appellant and Ms. Tamana Alam, learned DR for the Revenue. 4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of record, it appears that the identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of Shree Cements Ltd. V/s CCE, Alwar 2018- TIOL-748-CESTAT-DEL where it was observed that:- 7. We have heard both sides at length and perused the appeal record. As out lined above, the appellants are covered by the Investment Promotion Schemes of the Rajasthan Government. In terms of the various schemes of the Rajasthan Government, the appellants are required to discharge their VAT liability by making payment of the same. Out of suc
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ood, no benefit towards excise duty can be given in terms of Section 4(3)(d). However, we note that the Tribunal in the case of Welspun Corporation Ltd. (Supra) has distinguished the decision of the Apex Court in the light of Gujarat VAT Act, 2003. In the Welspun Corporation Ltd. case, the assessee had opted for remission of tax scheme under which a portion of the VAT paid was remitted back to the assessee. The Tribunal held that such subsidy amounts are not required to the included in the transaction value. 9. In the present case we know that for the initial period the assessees are required to remit the VAT recovered by them at the time of sale of the goods manufactured. A part of such VAT is given back to them in the form of subsidy in Challan 37 B. Such Challans are as good as cash but can be used only for payment of VAT in the subsequent period. In terms of the scheme of the Government of Rajasthan payment of VAT using such Challan are considered legal payments of tax. In view of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =