9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 915X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017 respectively. The appellants have their factories situated in the State of Rajasthan and were operating under Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme which was notified by Government of Rajasthan with the objective of facilitating investment in the establishment of new enterprises. Under the various schemes of the Rajasthan Government, the appellant (assessees) were eligible for subsidies. As per the various schemes applicable to the assessees, they were required to deposit VAT/CST/SGST at the applicable rate with the Government and in terms of the scheme notified, will be entitled to disbursement of subsidy by the appropriate authorities. The subsidy concerned is sanctioned and disbursed in form 37B and such challan in the form VAT 37B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot in the nature of exemption from payment of VAT but requires the VAT to be actually paid. Consequentially he submitted that in terms of Section 4 (3) (d), deduction of such VAT paid is allowed and hence the impugned orders are not sustainable. 5. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v/s Welspun Corporation Ltd. (2017 TIOL 1287 CESTAT MUM). He submitted that the Tribunal in the above case has distinguished the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Super Synotex India Limited reported as 2014-301-ELT- 273 (SC). 6. The Ld. DR justified the impugned orders. He relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the Super Synotex case (Supra). He argued that with effect from 1/7/200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In the above decision the Apex Court has categorically held that after 01/07/2000, unless the sales tax/VAT is actually paid to the good, no benefit towards excise duty can be given in terms of Section 4(3)(d). However, we note that the Tribunal in the case of Welspun Corporation Ltd. (Supra) has distinguished the decision of the Apex Court in the light of Gujarat VAT Act, 2003. In the Welspun Corporation Ltd. case, the assesse had opted for remission of tax scheme under which a portion of the VAT paid was remitted back to the assessee. The Tribunal held that such subsidy amounts are not required to the included in the transaction value. 9. In the present case we know that for the initial period the assessees are required to remit the VA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
