TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1028X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation - Held that: - the extended period is not invokable as the issue whether the appellant is liable to pay duty on the amount retained by them collected on account of sales tax from their customers as per Entitlement Certificate issued by the Haryana Vat department was in dispute and the same has been settled in 2014 - extended period not invoked. As the appellant has not collected any duty on the amount of sales tax retained by them, the appellant is entitled to cum duty benefit. Appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. E/57890/2013 - Final Order No. 62019/2017 - Dated:- 18-8-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member ( Judicial ) And Mr.Devender Singh, Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant : Shri Alok Yadav, Advocate For the Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he details of the Sales Tax amount retained by them from the date of issue of the Entitlement Certificate dated 1.12.2006 and 8.11.2006 during the last five years. The appellant provided the details for the period 2006-07 to 2008-09 and December 2006 to October 2007 and further from April, 2009 to March, 2010. On the basis of details provided, three show cause notices were issued to the appellant for the period 2006-07 to 2009-10 to demand duty on the amount of ₹ 7,99,45,395/-, ₹ 18,76,83,599/- and ₹ 7,52,16,400/- retained by them as Sales Tax/Vat as per Entitlement Certificate Haryana Vat Department. The matter was adjudicated and it was observed by the adjudicating authority that the demand of ₹ 1,31,39,642/-is for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. We find that the issue came up before the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Limited (supra) wherein the Hon ble Apex Court held that the amount retained on account of sales tax as per the Entitlement Certificate is to be added in the assessable value. Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. (supra) and Man Industries (India) Ltd (supra). We find that those decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case as those decisions are related to Maharashtra Vat Act and Gujarat Vat Act whereas in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Limited (supra), the Hon ble Apex Court has examined the provisions of Haryana Vat Act, therefore, those de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich the noticee has pointed out as amounting to ₹ 1,31,39,642/- on an amount of ₹ 7,99,45,395.00. Accordingly, demand to the extent of ₹ 1,31,39,642.00 is liable to be dropped. 9. In view of the above, the extended period is not invokable as the issue whether the appellant is liable to pay duty on the amount retained by them collected on account of sales tax from their customers as per Entitlement Certificate issued by the Haryana Vat department was in dispute and the same has been settled in 2014 in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Limited. In that circumstance, we hold that the extended period is not invokable. 10. We further find that as per observation made by the Ld.Commissioner in the impugned order, the dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther find that as the appellant has not collected any duty on the amount of sales tax retained by them, the appellant is entitled to cum duty benefit. 13. As the extended period of limitation is not invokable as the issue was pending before the Apex Court and was settled in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., therefore, no penalty is imposable on the appellant. 14. In view of above observations, the following order is passed: (a) the demands as per show cause notice 3.4.2008 are dropped which have already been dropped by the ld.Commissioner. (b) the demands by invoking the extended period of limitation as per show cause notice dated 4.5.2009 are set aside (c) the demands within the normal period as per show cause notices da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
