M\/s. Amar Pratap Steels (P) Ltd. Versus CGST & CE, Jaipur I
Central Excise
2018 (9) TMI 123 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 19-7-2018
Excise Appeal No. 50716 of 2018 – A\/52610\/2018-EX[DB]
Central Excise
Mr. C L Mahar, Member (Technical) And Ms. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial)
\nShri Himanshu Bansal, Advocate for the Appellants
\nMs Tamana Aalam, AR for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: C L Mahar:
\nThe present appeal has been filed against order-in-appeal No. 391(SM) CE\/JPR\/2017 dated 31.10.2017.
\n2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant has established his factory in the State of Rajasthan and was 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 appellant (assessee) was eligible for subsidies as per the various schemes applicable to the asses<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n rd, 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:- = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n he included in the transaction value. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Amar Pratap Steels (P) Ltd. Versus CGST & CE, Jaipur ICentral Excise2018 (9) TMI 123 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 19-7-2018Excise Appeal No. 50716 of 2018 – A\/52610\/2018-EX[DB]Central ExciseMr. C L Mahar, Member (Technical) And Ms. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial) Shri Himanshu Bansal, Advocate for the Appellants Ms Tamana … Continue reading “M\/s. Amar Pratap Steels (P) Ltd. Versus CGST & CE, Jaipur I”<\/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-13506","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13506","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=13506"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13506\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13506"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13506"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13506"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\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 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<\/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 t<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n