9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1091X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T subsidy under Rajasthan Investment Promotion Policy-2003. The Department noticed that they have not paid duty on value including the investment subsidy against Entitlement Certificate sanctioned under the above policy. Accordingly, duty demands were confirmed against the appellant by the original authority. In addition, he also levied penalty equal to 50% of such duty. The Department challenged the order of the original authority before the Commissioner (Appeals) contending that the penalty leviable should be equal to the duty confirmed and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order allowed the appeal. 3. Sh. G. G. Gupta, ld. Advocate submits that the issue of duty liability on the VAT subsidy has been settled in favour of the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notified, will be entitled to disbursement of subsidy by the appropriated authorities. The subsidy concern is sanctioned and disbursed in Form 37B and as such challans in the form VAT 37B can be utilised for discharge of the VAT liability of the appellant for subsequent period. The Revenue was of the view that VAT liability discharged by the utilisation of the investment subsidy granted in Form 37B actually paid, for the purpose of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. Accordingly, the Revenue proceeded to include such subsidy amounts in the value of the goods cleared by the appellants and demanded the difference of the duty. Being aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present appeals. 2. With this background we heard the Ld. Advocates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Ltd. In the above decision the Apex Court has categorically held that after 01/07/2000, unless the sales tax/VAT is actually paid to the good, no benefit towards excise duty can be given in terms of Section 4(3)(d). However, we note that the Tribunal in the case of Welspun Corporation Ltd. (Supra) has distinguished the decision of the Apex Court in the light of Gujarat VAT Act, 2003. In the Welspun Corporation Ltd. case, the assesse had opted for remission of tax scheme under which a portion of the VAT paid was remitted back to the assessee. The Tribunal held that such subsidy amounts are not required to the included in the transaction value. 9. In the present case we know that for the initial period the assessees are required to remit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... included to remain in production, employment of certain percentage of persons in assessee unit, and numerous other conditions as brought out in Para 9 of the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 11. By following the decision of the Tribunal in the Welspun Corporation Ltd. case we conclude that there is no justification for inclusion in the assessable value, the VAT amounts paid by the assessee using VAT 37B Challans. 12. In the result, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed. 5. By following our earlier order (supra), we set aside the impugned orders and allow all the appeals with consequential relief, if any". 6. By following the above order, we come to the conclusion that there can be no liability for payment of exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
