2016 (11) TMI 1393

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vichandran (Technical Member) The appeal is against order dated 17.07.2007 of Commissioner (Appeals) Jaipur. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of A.C. SR conductors liable to Central Excise duty. The dispute in the present case is that the quantum of abatement available on sales tax on the impugned order in terms of Section 4(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The differential duty d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n paid to the State Government. The show cause notice proceeded to demand duty of Central Excise on the sales tax retained by the appellant considering the same as part of the assessable value. During the course of the argument, ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted copies of VAT returns filed by the appellant during the impugned period. We note that under Sl. No. E regarding total tax liability .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt discharged is as sales tax is also mentioned in the returns filed with the State authorities. Reliance can also be made by the decided case on similar set of facts in Oswal Woollen 2002 (146) ELT 316, Narayani Steel Pvt. Ltd., - 2004 (169) ELT 129 (Tri. Bang) and Subhash --- 2009 (235) ELT 143 (Tri. Del.). 4. In view of these admitted facts, we find no justification in the impugned order and a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X