Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 1375 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - inclusion of amount received on account of VAT subsidy shown in notes to the profit and loss account in assessable value - divergence of views - HELD THAT:- In view of the difference of opinion between the Members of the Division Bench, the following questions arise for consideration by the ld. Third Member:- (A) Whether in the facts and circumstances, the capital/wage subsidy in question reduces the selling price of goods, as held by the Member (Technical). OR As held by the Member (Judicial) that the subsidy in question does not reduce the selling price of the goods. Nor does it amount to indirect flow from the buyer to the seller. (B) The amount of subsidy under dispute is an independent amount of subsidy received from the Government on the basis of the capital investment and employment generation/wages paid and thus, is not an additional sales consideration, as held by the Member (Judicial). OR The amount of subsidy under dispute is not an independent amount received by the appellant. Rather it is computed with reference to the sales tax paid and thus, is an additional consideration for sales, as held by the Member (Technical). (C) The facts in this appeal are similar to the facts in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR-II VERSUS M/S. SUPER SYNOTEX (INDIA) LTD. AND OTHERS [2014 (3) TMI 42 - SUPREME COURT], as held by the Member (Technical) OR The facts in the present case are difference and hence, ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Super Synotex India Ltd. is not applicable. (D) Under the facts and circumstances, the appellant have received VAT subsidy (directly affecting the selling price of the goods), as held by the Member (Technical) OR It is not a case of VAT subsidy, affecting or depressing the selling price of the goods, as held by the Member (Judicial). (E) The provisions of Section 9 of Rajasthan VAT Act has not been considered in the case of Shree Cement Ltd. [2018 (1) TMI 915 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] leading to erroneous judgment in the said case, as 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). Registry is directed to place this appeal before the Hon’ble President for appropriate orders and/or for appointing the 3rd Member to hear and decide the questions on the difference of opinion between the Members of the Division Bench.
|