9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellants own case, we hold that the impugned orders are not sustainable in both the cases and are hereby set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal Nos. E/156-157/2008-DB - Final Order No. 20422-20423/2016 - Dated:- 13-6-2016 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHOK K. ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER. Mr. Sandeep Gopalakrishnan, Adv. for the Appellant. Mr. N. Jagadish, A.R. for the Respondent. ORDER Per : S.S GARG The present appeals are directed against the impugned orders dated 10/12/2007 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the order-in-original and denying the benefit of abatement of Sales Tax/VAT on equalized basis. Since the issue in both the appeals is common and therefore both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is opposed to the provisions of law, judgements and CBEC instructions etc. on the issue. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no material change in the provisions of law i.e. under Section 4(4()(d)(ii) prior to 01.7.2000 and Section 4(3)(d) with effect from 01.07.2000, in so far as the claim of admissible deduction (sales tax/VAT in the instant case) on the basis of actual tax as long as the same does not exceed the amount paid to the State Exchequer. Learned counsel also submitted that once the sales tax is held to be an admissible deduction, it should be allowed even on equalized basis as the appellant has not claimed a single paisa more than what is actua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich is reproduced in the order of the Tribunal in the case of the appellant reported in 2015-TIOL-510-CESTAT MAD. 4. It is seen that the Tribunal subsequently vide Final order No. A/361 362/13/EB/C-II dt. 16.4.2013 in the appellant's own case set aside the order and allowed the appeal. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below:- 5. This issue came up before this Tribunal in appellant's own case wherein vide Order No. A/1956/WZB/Mum/05/C-III/EB dated 25.08.2005 this Tribunal held that the Equalized Sales Tax can be allowed to be deducted. This issue again came up before this Tribunal in the case of Dabur India ltd. 2009 (247) ELT 335 = 2009-TIOL-1148-CESTAT-DEL wherein this Tribunal observed as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Dabur India Ltd. - 2013-TIOL-125-CESTAT-DEL wherein also the same view was taken by this Tribunal. 7. Following the precedent decisions cited hereinabove of this Tribunal, which was accepted by the revenue, we do not have any hesitation to hold that the appellant are entitled to claim deduction of Equalized Sales Tax from the transaction value to arrive at the assessable value. 5. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the appellants are entitled to claim the abatement of equalized sales tax from the transaction value. Accordingly, both the impugned orders are set aside and both the appeals are allowed with consequential relief. Stay applications are disposed of. 4.1 The Revenue challenged the decision of CESTAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
