M\/s Suncity Strips & Tubes Pvt. Ltd., M\/s Panwar Castings Pvt. Ltd. Versus CGST, Jodhpur
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 520 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 13-9-2018
Excise Appeals No. 52353 and 52358 of 2018 – A\/53097-53098\/2018-EX[DB]
Central Excise
Shri C.L. Mahar, Member (Technical) And Ms. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial)
\nShri O.P. Agarwal, C.A. – for the appellant.
\nShri S.K. Bansal, Authorized Representative (DR) – for the Respondent.
\nORDER
\nPer. C.L. Mahar :-
\nThe 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.
\n2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant have established their factories 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 s<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ned Consultant for the appellant and Shri S.K. Bansal, learned DR for the Revenue. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 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 Suncity Strips & Tubes Pvt. Ltd., M\/s Panwar Castings Pvt. Ltd. Versus CGST, JodhpurCentral Excise2018 (11) TMI 520 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 13-9-2018Excise Appeals No. 52353 and 52358 of 2018 – A\/53097-53098\/2018-EX[DB]Central ExciseShri C.L. Mahar, Member (Technical) And Ms. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial) Shri O.P. Agarwal, C.A. – … Continue reading “M\/s Suncity Strips & Tubes Pvt. Ltd., M\/s Panwar Castings Pvt. Ltd. Versus CGST, Jodhpur”<\/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-14943","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14943","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=14943"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14943\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14943"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14943"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14943"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. 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:-
\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<\/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 <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n