2018 (8) TMI 1091 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - includibility - investment subsidy against Entitlement Certificate sanctioned under the above policy - Held that - The issue of liability of payment of excise duty on the subsidy amounts has been decided in favour of the appellant in the case of GREENLAM INDUSTRIES LTD 2018 (4) TMI 1552 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that there is no justification for inclusion in the assessable value, the VAT amounts paid by the assessee using VAT 37B Challans. There can be no liability for payment of excise duty on the VAT subsidy amount - penalty also set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Duty liability on VAT subsidy under Rajasthan Investment Promotion Policy-2003
- Imposition of penalty equal to the duty confirmed
- Interpretation of excise duty liability on subsidy amounts
- Application of Tribunal decisions on similar issues

Analysis:

Issue 1: Duty liability on VAT subsidy under Rajasthan Investment Promotion Policy-2003
The appellant, a manufacturer of automobile components entitled to VAT subsidy under the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Policy-2003, faced duty demands for not paying duty on value including the investment subsidy. The original authority confirmed duty demands and imposed a penalty equal to 50% of the duty. The appellant contended that the duty liability on the VAT subsidy had been settled in their favor in previous decisions. The Tribunal examined the issue and referred to its previous order where it was established that the subsidy amounts need not be included in the assessable value for excise duty purposes. The Tribunal concluded that there was no liability for excise duty on the VAT subsidy amount, thereby setting aside the duty demands against the appellant.

Issue 2: Imposition of penalty equal to the duty confirmed
The Department challenged the original authority's decision before the Commissioner (Appeals), arguing that the penalty leviable should be equal to the duty confirmed. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, leading to the appellant's submission that since the duty demand had been decided in their favor, there was no justification for imposing a penalty. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments from both sides and the previous order, concluded that as there was no duty liability on the VAT subsidy amount, the penalty also did not arise. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant.

Issue 3: Interpretation of excise duty liability on subsidy amounts
The Tribunal delved into the interpretation of excise duty liability on subsidy amounts, citing cases where the Tribunal had ruled that subsidy amounts need not be included in the assessable value for excise duty calculation. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of actual payment of VAT and the legal validity of utilizing subsidy challans for VAT payments in subsequent periods. By following the precedent set in previous cases, the Tribunal determined that the VAT amounts paid using VAT 37B challans should not be included in the assessable value for excise duty purposes.

Issue 4: Application of Tribunal decisions on similar issues
The Tribunal referenced its earlier orders and the decisions in cases involving investment promotion schemes and VAT subsidies to support its conclusion in the present appeal. By analyzing the legal validity of utilizing subsidy challans for VAT payments and the interpretation of excise duty liability on subsidy amounts, the Tribunal applied consistent reasoning from previous judgments to decide that there was no duty liability on the VAT subsidy amount in this case. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.