M\/s. Universal Cables Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST, Central Excise, Customs, Jabalpur
Central Excise
2018 (3) TMI 1229 – CESTAT, NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT, NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 2-2-2018
Excise Appeal No. 51817 of 2017 – FINAL ORDER NO. 50691\/2018
Central Excise
Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
\nShri Dhruv Tiwari, Advocate for the Appellants
\nShri S K Bansal, AR for the Respondent
\nThe present appeal is filed by the appellant against the Order-in-Original No. 24\/2017 dated 31.8.2017. Disputed period is September, 2012 to April, 2016.
\n2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacturing of insulated wires and cables which attract central excise duty under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant cleared the final products after paying the Central Excise duty and also discharged VAT\/CST under MPIIPAS.
\n3. With this background, we heard Shri Dhruv Tiwari a<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n r hearing both sides and on perusal of record, it appears that the identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of M\/s. Pioneer Engineer Industries vs. CCE, Indore [Final Order No. 50392\/2018 dated 25.1.2018 ] where it was observed that- = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n that after 01\/07\/2000, unless the sales tax\/VAT is actually paid to the good, 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 assesse 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. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Universal Cables Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST, Central Excise, Customs, JabalpurCentral Excise2018 (3) TMI 1229 – CESTAT, NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT, NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 2-2-2018Excise Appeal No. 51817 of 2017 – FINAL ORDER NO. 50691\/2018 Central ExciseMr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri Dhruv Tiwari, Advocate for … Continue reading “M\/s. Universal Cables Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST, Central Excise, Customs, Jabalpur”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11092","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11092","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11092"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11092\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11092"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11092"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11092"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. A5. After hearing both sides and on perusal of record, it appears that the identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in Shree Cement Ltd. vs. CCE, Alwar (Final Order No. 50189-50191\/2018 dt. 18.01.2018) where it was observed that -fter hearing both sides and on perusal of record, it appears that the identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in Shree Cement Ltd. vs. CCE, Alwar (Final Order No. 50189-50191\/2018 dt. 18.01.2018) where it was observed that –
\n“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 t<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n9. 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 <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n