Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (7) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2023 (7) TMI 659 - AT - Central Excise


Issues Involved:

1. Inclusion of remitted VAT in the assessable value for excise duty.
2. Applicability of the Supreme Court judgment in Super Synotex (India) Ltd.
3. Time-barred demand.

Summary:

Inclusion of remitted VAT in the assessable value for excise duty:

The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Soda Lime Amber empty Glass Bottles, availed a composite scheme under the New Incentive Policy of 1995-2000 by the Government of Gujarat, which included sales tax exemption and deferment. A show cause notice was issued alleging that the appellant retained VAT/CST amounting to Rs. 8,00,34,587/- and proposed a demand of Central Excise Duty of Rs. 1,01,71,736/-. The appellant contended that the VAT, although collected, was remitted by the State Government and thus should not be included in the assessable value for excise duty. They relied on the Mumbai Tribunal's decision in Welspun Corporation Ltd and various other judgments, asserting that remitted VAT cannot be included in the assessable value as per Section 4 (4) (d) (ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Applicability of the Supreme Court judgment in Super Synotex (India) Ltd:

The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand based on the Supreme Court judgment in Super Synotex (India) Ltd, which the appellant argued was not applicable to their case. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from Super Synotex, noting that in the latter, sales tax was exempted at the time of removal, whereas in the present case, VAT was payable at the time of clearance and subsequently remitted. The Tribunal, referencing the Welspun Corporation Ltd case, held that remitted VAT cannot be included in the assessable value, as it was actually payable at the time of removal.

Time-barred demand:

The appellant argued that the demand was time-barred, as the show cause notice was issued in January 2012 for the period from December 2006 to April 2010. They cited various judgments to support their claim. The Tribunal, agreeing with the appellant, found that the demand was indeed time-barred.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the demand in the present case is not sustainable, set aside the impugned order, and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.

(Pronounced in the open court on 14.07.2023)

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates