2018 (11) TMI 520 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – Valuation – inclusion of investment subsidy granted in Form 37B in assessable value – Held that:- Identical issue decided in the case of SHREE CEMENT LTD. SHREE JAIPUR CEMENT LTD. VERSUS 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 Appeals No. 52353 and 52358 of 2018 – A/53097-53098/2018-EX[DB] – Dated:- 13-9-2018 – Shri C.L. Mahar, Member (Technical) And Ms. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial) Shri O.P. Agarwal, C.A. – for the appellant. Shri S.K. Bansal, Authorized Representative (DR) – for the Respondent. ORDER Per. C.L. Mahar :- The present appeals have been filed against order-in-appeals No. 553/CRM/CE/JDR/2018 dated 08/06/2018 and No. 486/CRM/CE/JDR/2018 dated 24/05/2018. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant have
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
dingly, 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 O.P. Agarwal, learned Consultant for the appellant and Shri S.K. Bansal, 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 such VAT credited to the Government, a certain portion is disbursed back to them
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
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 the above, Revenue is not correct in taking the view that VAT liability disch
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =