9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 852X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g under Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme which was notified by Government of Rajasthan with the objective of facilitating investment in the establishment of new enterprises. Under the various schemes of the Rajasthan Government, the appellant (assessees) were eligible for subsidies. As per the various schemes applicable to the assessees, they were required to deposit VAT/CST/SGST at the applicable rate with the Government and in terms of the scheme notified, will be entitled to disbursement of subsidy by the appropriate authorities. The subsidy concerned is sanctioned and disbursed in form 37B and such challan in the form VAT 37B can be utilized for discharge of the VAT liability of the appellant for subsequent periods. Revenue was of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y paid. Consequentially he submitted that in terms of Section 4 (3) (d), deduction of such VAT paid is allowed and hence the impugned orders are not sustainable. 6. The learned Consultant further submitted that the issue is no longer res-integra and has been decided in favour of the appellant in several decisions. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v/s Welspun Corporation Ltd. (2017 TIOL 1287 CESTAT MUM). He submitted that the Tribunal in the above case has distinguished the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Super Synotex India Limited reported as 2014-301-ELT- 273 (SC). 7. This view has been followed by the Tribunal in the case of Shree Cement Ltd. and others vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 assessee 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. 11. In the present case, for the initial period the assessees are required to remit the VAT recovered by them at the time of sale of the goods manufactured. A part of such VAT is given back to them in the form of subsidy in Challan 37 B. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
