M\/s Dhuleva Industries Versus CCE &GST, Udaipur
Central Excise
2018 (7) TMI 5 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 21-5-2018
Ex. Appeal No. 51022 of 2018 – A\/52010\/2018-EX[DB]
Central Excise
Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) And Ms. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial)
\nSh. B. L. Yadav, Advocate for the appellant
\nSh. U. Sengraj, AR for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: V. Padmanabhan:
\nThe present appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal JAI-EXCUS-001-APP-073-2018 dated 02.02.2018.
\n2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants has established their factory in the State of Rajasthan and were operating under Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme which was notified by the Government of Rajasthan with the objective of facilitating investment in the establishment of new enterprises under the various schemes of Rajasthan Government. The appellants (assessees) were eligible for subsidies as per the various schemes applicable to the assess<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 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:- = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n saction value. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Dhuleva Industries Versus CCE &GST, UdaipurCentral Excise2018 (7) TMI 5 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 21-5-2018Ex. Appeal No. 51022 of 2018 – A\/52010\/2018-EX[DB]Central ExciseMr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) And Ms. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial) Sh. B. L. Yadav, Advocate for the appellant Sh. U. Sengraj, AR for the Respondent … Continue reading “M\/s Dhuleva Industries Versus CCE &GST, Udaipur”<\/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-12432","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12432","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=12432"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12432\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12432"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12432"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12432"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n7. 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 the form of subsidies. Such disbursement happens in the form of VAT 37 B, challan which can be utilized in subsequent periods to discharge VAT liability. The crux of the dispute in the present case is whether such subsidy amounts are required to be included in the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the appellants, in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. As per the concept of transaction value out<\/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 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 discharged by utilizing such subsidy challans cannot be taken as VAT actually paid.
\n10. It is pertinent to reproduce the observations of the Tribunal in the Welspun Corporation Ltd. case
\n “5.1 The Respondent company opted for “Remission of Tax Scheme” and was thus eligible for the Capital subsidy in the form of remission of Sales Tax subject to the conditions to be fulfilled…. The subsidy in the form of remission of<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n