9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e period under the package incentive scheme for deferred payment for sales tax payers introduced by the Government of Maharashtra. Under the Notification issued in November, 2002, an option was given to the beneficiaries working under the deferred payment scheme to avail abatement of 60% of the deferred sales tax liability on payment of 40% of the sales before a particular date. Under the said notification, out of total tax liability of Rs. 10,12,48,116/-, the assessee remitted an amount of Rs. 4,04,52,370/- and thereby claimed and received the abatement of Rs. 6,07,95,746/-. The abatement was claimed and availed relating to the sales effected during the period from 1-7-97 to 31-12-2000. The said abatement is reflected in their balance shee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly 50% was paid to the State Government and balance of 50% was given as a capital subsidy, assessee would be entitled with a full deduction of 100% of sales tax. The Tribunal has also referred to paragraph 6 of the CBEC Circular No. 671/62/2002-CX., dated 9-10-2002 which reads as follows : Therefore, since the set-off scheme of sales tax does not change the rate of sale tax payable/chargeable on the finished goods, the set-off is not to be taken into account for calculating the amount of Sales Tax permissible as abatement for arriving at the assessable value under Section 4. In other words, only that amount of Sales Tax will be permissible as deduction under Section 4 as is equal to the amount legally permissible under the local tax laws ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the respective State Governments. 6. We have considered the submission. We find that in this case it is an admitted fact that the abatements were availed of during the period 1997-2000, whereas the duty is being demanded in respect of clearance effected in the year 2002-03 which prima facie does not appear to be tenable. Further, the present case was also a case where incentives were given by the State Government in the form of abatement of sales tax liability on account of deferred payment, if such payments were made in advance of the stipulated date. The appellants were allowed to charge the full rate of sales tax from the customers and the abatement was in the nature of subsidy only. We, therefore, hold that the appellants have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
