9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ANPATI PLASTFAB LTD., M/S APEX ALUMINIUM EXTRUSION PVT. LTD., M/S MAHA MAYAY STEELS, M/S. TIRUPATI BALAJI FURNACES PVT. LTD., M/S. TRANS ACNR SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., M/S. FRYSTAL PET PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS CGST- ALWAR [ 2023 (3) TMI 1120 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] , where on reference the issue was once again settled that 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 principle of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity vide order-in-original dated 10.12.2021 and also by the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal has been filed before this Tribunal. 3. We have heard Shri Suhrid Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Manish Kumar Chawda, learned Authorised Representative for the respondent. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records of the case. The issue which arises for our consideration is whether the amount of subsidy received by the appellant under the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme, 2010 from the State Government is includible in the assessable value of the goods cleared during the period in dispute in terms of the transaction value as defined in Section 4(3)(d)of the Act. 5. The learned counsel for the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lwar [ 2019 (4) TMI 748-CESTAT, New Delhi] 4. H-One India Pvt. Ltd. Anr. Vs. CCE [ 2019 (5) TMI 1226-CESTAT, New Delhi] 5. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Rajasthan Vs. Prem Jain Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd. [ 2019 (8) TMI 1544-CESTAT, New Delhi] 6. Shree Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE, Alwar [ 2018 (1) TMI 915, CESTAT, New Delhi ] 7. FFC Clutch India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [ 2019 (12)TMI 109 CESTAT, New Delhi ] 7. For the present controversy, we would place reliance on the latest decision in Harit Polytech (supra), where on reference the issue was once again settled that 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 coll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
