9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrect and legal not requiring any interference. Against the said order, M/s NR Polymers Pvt Ltd., (appellant) went to the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana vide Appeal CEA No. 18/2024. The Hon'ble High Court thereafter passed an order dated 27.01.2025 allowing the said appeal partly and remanding the matter back for taking a decision on the limited aspect of applicability of the judgment in the case of M/s Super Synotex (India) Ltd., [2014 (301) ELT 273 (SC)] for the period prior to 31.06.2000 in so far as appellant is concerned. Accordingly, this Bench restored the appeal in terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana and heard the matter. 2. Learned Advocate has mainly contended that there is no dispute as far as facts are co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sides and perused the records. 5. At the very outset, it is made clear that this appeal has been taken up in terms of order of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana dated 27.01.2025. The Hon'ble High Court examined the said order dated 18.02.2019 passed by the Tribunal, wherein, inter alia, the Tribunal had relied on the judgment of M/s Super Synotex (India) Ltd., supra, for rejecting the entire appeal, wherein, certain arguments made by the appellant regarding applicability of the judgment for the period prior to 01.07.2000 was not considered by the Tribunal while deciding the said appeal. The Hon'ble High Court has observed that the period covered in this dispute is from 1996-97 and 2003- 04 and if the M/s Super Synotex (India) Ltd., case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia) Ltd., supra, and we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has examined the issue of taxability in respect of amount retained by the assessee by treating the said retention as price of goods under the basic fundamental conception of transaction value as substituted with effect from 01.07.2000 under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. It also took into account CBEC Circular No. 378/11/98 dated 12.03.1998 which protected industrial units availing incentive scheme as there was conceptual book adjustment of sales tax paid to the Department. The issue involved was that the assessee had not paid the duty on the additional consideration collected towards the sales tax. The Revenue felt that the assessee was availing exemption from the payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, from the plain reading of the judgment in the case of M/s Super Synotex (India) Ltd., it is obvious that the said judgment has not considered the period before 01.07.2000 and therefore the said judgment is only applicable for the period after 01.07.2000. 7. We also find that in the case of National Engineering Industries, supra, Hon'ble Supreme Court took same view in a similar factual matrix relying on the earlier judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Super Synotex (India) Ltd., supra. We also find that Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Uttam Galva Steels Ltd., by relying on catena of judgments and Departmental clarification, inter alia, held that in terms of various circulars dated 12.03.1998, 30.06.2000 and 04.12.2002, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
