M\/s. Structural Waterproofing Pvt. Ltd., M\/s. Frontier Strips Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, Central Excise, Alwar
Central Excise
2018 (5) TMI 1409 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 18-5-2018
Excise Appeal No. 50675 of 2018, Excise Appeal No. 50692 of 2018 – Final Order No. 51951-51952 \/2018
Central Excise
Hon'ble Mr. Justice ( Dr. ) Satish Chandra, President And Hon'ble Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member ( Technical )
\nShri G G Gupta, Advocate and Shri Mohit Gohlyan, CA for the Appellants
\nShri M R Sharma, AR for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: Justice ( Dr. ) Satish Chandra
\nThe present appeals are filed by the appellant against the Order-in- Appeal No. 34 (AK) CE\/JPR\/2017 dated 29.01.2018 and 496-544(SM)CE\/JPR\/2017 dated 01.12.2017. In both the appeals, the issue is identical and hence, are disposed of by a common order.
\n2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants have their factories situated in the State of Rajasthan and were operating<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n e on record, it appears that identical issue has came up before the Tribunal in the case of M\/s. Shree Cement Ltd. & other vs. CCE, Alwar [ Final Order Nos. 50189- 50191\/2018 dated 18.1.2018] as also in M\/s. UltraTech Cement Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur I [Final Order No. 51129\/2018 dated 28.3.2018] wherein it was observed that : = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n owever, 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. Structural Waterproofing Pvt. Ltd., M\/s. Frontier Strips Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, Central Excise, AlwarCentral Excise2018 (5) TMI 1409 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 18-5-2018Excise Appeal No. 50675 of 2018, Excise Appeal No. 50692 of 2018 – Final Order No. 51951-51952 \/2018Central ExciseHon'ble Mr. Justice ( Dr. ) … Continue reading “M\/s. Structural Waterproofing Pvt. Ltd., M\/s. Frontier Strips Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, Central Excise, Alwar”<\/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-11914","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11914","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=11914"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11914\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11914"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11914"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11914"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n 4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of record, it appears that identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of 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 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 in <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n 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 discha<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n