9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under VAT challan in favour of the appellant. Thus, it could not be said that the amount is in the nature of additional consideration. In the present case, the remission is in the nature of subsidy which the appellant was receiving from the State Government in the form of VAT 37B Challans and not from the buyers of the appellant. The said remission was not only as good as cash but can also not be considered as an additional consideration. Reliance placed in the case of SHREE CEMENT LTD. SHREE JAIPUR CEMENT LTD. VERSUS CCE, ALWAR [ 2018 (1) TMI 915 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] wherein it was held that where assesses are required to remit the VAT recovered by them at the time of sale of goods manufactured and a part of such VAT is given back ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 31 January, 2018 alongwith the interest at the appropriate rate with the proportionate penalties. The said proposal was confirmed by the original Adjudicating Authority vide Order No. 3780 dated 5 July, 2018. Being aggrieved, an Appeal was preferred. The Appeal was allowed vide the Order-in-Appeal No. 976-1741 dated 29.10.2018. The Department being aggrieved of the said Order has preferred the impugned Appeal before this Tribunal. 2. We have heard Shri V.B. Jain, learned Authorised Representative for the Department. It is submitted on behalf of the Department that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Khanna Polyweave Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Final Order No. 50837/2018 dated 28 February, 2018 as is relied upon b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were remitted to the State Government without retaining or appropriating anything whatsoever on account of any promotional schemes including the impugned scheme. It is denied that the alleged amount received by the appellant was a VAT refund or subsidy. It was merely a financial assistance not susceptible to the accessible value for the payment of excise duty payable to the Government. Justifying the Order of Commissioner (Appeals) the Appeal of Department is prayed to be dismissed. 4. After hearing both the parties, the controversy to be adjudicated in the case is as to whether the 75% VAT refunded by the State Government to the noticee under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Investment Promotion Assistance Scheme, 2004/2010, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant was receiving from the State Government in the form of VAT 37B Challans and not from the buyers of the appellant. The said remission was not only as good as cash but can also not be considered as an additional consideration. 4.3 The issue is no more res integra. We also draw our support from the case Shree Cement Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Alwar 2018 (Vol-I) TMI 915-CESTAT-Mum wherein it was held that where assesses are required to remit the VAT recovered by them at the time of sale of goods manufactured and a part of such VAT is given back to them in the form of subsidy in VAT 37b Challans, such Challans are as good as cash but for the limited purpose of being used for the payment of VAT in the subsequent period. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
