9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand has been confirmed against the appellant on account of the rebate given by Haryana State Government under Rule 28-C of The Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975. Initially, the appellant collected the VAT from the customers and the payment of VAT was deferred but later on, the appellant reta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. reported in 2014 (307) ELT 625 (SC) wherein it has been held that the amount retained by the assesse on account of VAT concession given by the Haryana State Government, the said amount is required to be added in the assessable value, therefore, we hold that on merits, the appellant have no case. 4. We further find the fact that the period in dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt decision in the case of 'Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CCE Delhi, 2014 (307) E.L.T. 625 (S.C.) and Super Synotex (India) Ltd. v. CCE Jaipur, 2014 (301) E.L.T. 273 had held that amount of sales tax concession retained by the respondent is required to be added in the assessable for levy of Central Excise Duty. However CESTAT held that extended period of limitation would not apply. Deciding the dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
