9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 763 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - amount of subsidy received by the appellant from the State Government under the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme, 2010 is includible in the assessable value of the goods cleared or not - section 4(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - period March 2011 to March 2015 - HELD THAT - The issue, stands settled by an order dated 21.03.2023 of the Tribunal while answering on the reference that had been made on account of difference of opinion between the two Members constituting the Division Bench in M/S HARIT POLYTECH PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE CGST- JAIPUR I, GANPATI PLASTFAB LTD., M/S APEX ALUMINIUM EXTRUSION PVT. LTD., M/S MAHA MAYAY STEELS, M/S. TIRUPATI BALAJI FURNACES PVT. LTD., M/S. TRANS ACNR SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., M/S. FRYSTAL PET PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS CGST- ALWAR 2023 (3) TMI 1120 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where it was held that In the promotion policy involved in the present case, the subsidy does not reduce the sales tax that is required to be paid by the assessee as the entire amount of sales tax collected by the assessee from the customer is paid. The subsidy amount, therefore, cannot be included in the transaction value for the purpose of levy of central excise duty under section 4 of the Excise Act. The decision of the Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR-II VERSUS M/S. SUPER SYNOTEX (INDIA) LTD. AND OTHERS 2014 (3) TMI 42 - SUPREME COURT was considered in the aforesaid order and it was held that it would not be applicable in the facts of the present case. In view of the aforesaid answer to the reference made by the Division Bench, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deserves to be set aside and is set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues:
The issue in this case is whether the subsidy received by the appellant under the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme is includible in the assessable value of goods cleared during a specific period under the Central Excise Act. Details of the Judgment: The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order for recovery of Central Excise duty from the appellant. The Tribunal settled the issue based on a reference made due to a difference of opinion between the Members of the Division Bench in a previous case. The authorized representative for the Department argued that a Supreme Court decision supported rejecting the appeal. The Tribunal considered submissions from both sides and referred to the previous case to analyze the issue. The reference made by the Division Bench raised several key points for consideration, including whether the subsidy reduces the selling price of goods and whether it is an additional consideration for sales. The Tribunal's analysis focused on whether the subsidy amount affects the selling price of the goods and concluded that the subsidy cannot be included in the transaction value for the levy of central excise duty. The Tribunal determined that the Supreme Court decision cited by the Department was not applicable to the present case. Based on this analysis, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and allowed the appeal. The decision was dictated and pronounced in open court for further action in the excise appeals process.
|
