9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .02.2016 Excise Appeal NO.76007 of 2017 March 2011 to March 2014 25.02.2016 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellant is a manufacturer of MS Billets, Rods, Coils classifiable under CETH No.7213 1090 and 7207 1920 and was clearing its finished goods on payment of appropriate duty of excise claiming Area Based Exemption under Notification No.20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007 (as amended). That the Appellant had discharged the Assam VAT liability during the relevant period from March 2011 to March 2014 and October 2014 by utilizing the VAT remission allowed as subsidy by the Assam Government, pursuant to Assam Industries (Tax Exemption) Scheme, 2009. Show Cause Notices were issued invoking the extended period of limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 59,650 6,143,933 April 2013 to March, 2014 76,360,455 67,960,533 8,155,264 163,205 81,553 8,399,922 Total 179,663,499 160,610,892 18,497,676 3,69,954 1,84,977 19,052,607 That by the common Order-in-Appeal dated 04.09.2017 in respect of two Show Cause Notices, the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals), Guwahati upheld the inclusion of the amount of VAT remission in the assessable value because only 1% of the Sales Tax collected from the buyer was deposited in the State Govt's exchequer and remaining 99% of the Sales Tax, so collected was retained by the Appellant and as such Assam VAT was neither actually paid nor actually payable. Hence the present Appeals before the Tribunal. 3. Shri R.S. Bajaj, Ld. Chartered Accountant submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used the Appeal records. 6. The Appellant manufactured and cleared excisable goods, the value of which are assessed under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Appellant has availed VAT remission under Assam Industries (Tax Exemption) Order, 2005 w.e.f. March 2011. As per terms of the above remission scheme the Appellant charged and collected 100% of the VAT payable from their buyers, retained 99% of the same and paid only 1% to the State Government. Department alleged that the as per Section 4(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the aforesaid amount of 99% of the VAT collected from buyers, which was not paid to the State Government is not excludible and should have formed part of Assessable Value for the purpose of payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per Synotex (India) Ltd. vs. CCE Jaipur, 2014 (301) ELT 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 departmental appeal, High Court has held that CESTAT in its order has observed that under Circular dated 30.06.2000 CBEC had clarified that such amount retained by the assessee is not required to be added to the assessable value. This view was negated by Apex court in the above said orders. Since there was no clarity on the issue, the assessee cannot be said to be at fault, hence extended period would not be available to raise the demand." 9. After cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
