9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 288 - AT - Central ExciseDemand of differential duty - The department was of the view that deduction from VAT from Transaction Value is admissible only for the amount of tax actually paid or payable - Held that - In the case of the Schemes under the Rajasthan Government, the subsidy amount is paid in the form of VAT Challan whereas in the case of the Scheme of the MP Government, the same is allowed by way of book adjustment against the VAT payable for the subsequent period. Identical issue decided in the case of Tribunal in the case of Shree Cement Ltd V/s Commissioner 2018 (1) TMI 915 - 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. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
- Whether the refund amounts received by the appellant should be included in the Transaction Value for payment of Central Excise duty. - Applicability of the judgement in the case of Super Synotex to the present case. - Interpretation of Transaction Value under Section 4(3)(d) in relation to the VAT collected by the appellant. - Consideration of subsidy amounts in the assessable value of goods manufactured by the appellant. Issue 1: Refund Amounts in Transaction Value The appellant, a cement manufacturer, received a refund under the MP Industrial Promotion Assistance Scheme, 2010. The State Government deposited the subsidy amount towards future VAT payment on behalf of the appellant. The department contended that the difference between the refund and the VAT collected by the appellant should be included in the Transaction Value for duty payment. The adjudicating authority upheld the demand based on the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Super Synotech, emphasizing that deduction from VAT for Transaction Value is admissible only for the tax actually paid or payable. Issue 2: Applicability of Super Synotex Judgement The appellant argued that the Super Synotex judgement focused on how Transaction Value is computed and whether the sales tax retained should be part of it. They contended that the demand should be restricted to goods cleared on Transaction Value, not under Section 4A based on MRP. The appellant highlighted that the VAT collected was actually paid to the State authorities, thus should not be included in the Transaction Value. Issue 3: Interpretation of Transaction Value The appellant cited various case laws to support their argument, emphasizing that the VAT collected and paid should not form part of the Transaction Value. They pointed out that the VAT collected was deposited with the State authorities, distinguishing their case from the Super Synotex scenario where only a portion of VAT was deposited. Issue 4: Consideration of Subsidy Amounts The Tribunal referred to a similar case involving subsidy amounts in the assessable value of goods under the Rajasthan Government's schemes. The Tribunal observed that the subsidy amounts in the form of VAT Challans, which could be used for subsequent VAT payments, should not be included in the assessable value. Following this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, noting the similarity in the subsidy mechanism between the Rajasthan and MP Government schemes. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand for inclusion of the subsidy amount in the Transaction Value for duty payment. The decision was based on the interpretation of Transaction Value, distinguishing the case from the Super Synotex judgement and aligning with the treatment of subsidy amounts in similar cases.
|
