9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D OTHERS [ 2014 (3) TMI 42 - SUPREME COURT] would not be applicable to the facts of the present case as that was a case where 25% of the amount collected as sales tax from the customers was paid by the assessee and the remaining 75% of the amount was retained by the assessee, which amount was treated to be the price of the goods. In the promotion policy involved in the present case, the subsidy does not reduce the sales tax that is required to be paid by the assessee as the entire amount of sales tax collected by the assessee from the customer is paid. The subsidy amount, therefore, cannot be included in the transaction value for the purpose of levy of central excise duty under section 4 of the Excise Act. The decision of the Supreme Court in Super Synotex India was considered in the aforesaid order and it was held that it would not be applicable in the facts of the present case. In view of the aforesaid answer to the reference made by the Division Bench, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) does not suffer from any illegality so as to call for interference - appeal dismissed. - Excise Appeal No. 50803 of 2019 - FINAL ORDER NO. 50765/2023 - Dated:- 29-5-2023 - MR. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority relying upon the Hon'ble Apex Court's Judgment rendered in the case of M/s Super Synotex (India) Lid.., cited supra held that the amount of Rs. 13,56,37,000/- received by the Appellant will be includable in the transaction value of the goods in-terms of the provisions of Section 4(3)(d)(2) of the said Act. I also find that in M/s Super Synotex (India) Ltd the Assessee paid only 25% and retained 75% of the amount which was collected as sales tax. 75% of the amount collected was retained by the Assessee. The amount payable as sales tax was only 25% of the normal sales tax. Here, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that Sales tax or VAT or turnover tax is payable or paid to the State Government on the transaction, which is regarded as sale, i.e., for transfer of title in the manufactured goods, and the amount paid or payable to the State Government towards sales tax, VAT, etc. is excluded because it is not an amount paid to the manufacturer towards the price, but an amount paid or payable to the State Government for the sale transaction, ie., transfer of title from the manufacturer to a third party. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the amount paid to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Mumbai's Order passed in the case of M/s Welspun Corporation Ltd. and of Man Industries (I) Ltd., Vs CCE [2017-TIOL-2002- CESTAT-MUM ] relied up on by the Appellant. 10 . In view of above, I find that in the present case the Appellant have initially paid the entire Sales Tax to the State Government while the amount of Rs. 13,56,37,000/- for the period 2013-14 to 2015-16 has been subsequently refunded to them as subsidy. Therefore, I find force in the Appellant's contention that the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in M/s Super Synotex (India) Ltd. is not applicable to their case in the light of Hon'ble Tribunal Mumbai's Order passed in the case of M/s Welspun Corporation Ltd. and above cited recent decisions of Hon'ble CESTAT, Delhi. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, of the present case, I am bound to follow above cited decisions of Hon ble CESTAT as judicial discipline. 4. Ms. Sukriti Das, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the issue now stands settled by an order dated 21.03.2023 on the reference that had arisen on account of difference of opinion between the two Members constituting the Division Bench in M/s Harit Polytech P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s held by the Member (Technical) OR The provisions of section 9 of Rajasthan VAT Act 2003 has got no application in the facts of the present case, as held by the Member (Judicial). (F) It is an appropriate case for reference to the ld. Third Member on the questions framed by the ld. Member (Technical) OR There is no case for reference to the Ld. Third Member and the appeal is fit to be allowed, as held by the Member (Judicial). 8. After referring to the provisions of law and the various decisions referred to by the assessee and the Department, the reference was answered in the following manner:- 31. To revert, what has to be examined is whether in a case where the assessee collects Rs.2500/- towards sales tax and adjusts the sales tax liability of Rs.1000/- from VAT 37B challan issued by the State Government as subsidy under the promotion policy and deposits the remaining amount of Rs. 1500/- towards sales tax in cash through VAT 37A Challan, then whether this 1000/- can be said to be an additional consideration. The decision of the Supreme Court in Super Synotex India would not be applicable to the facts of the present case as that was a case where 25% of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
