TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MI 915 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that There is no justification for inclusion in the assessable value, the VAT amounts paid by the assessee using VAT 37B Challans. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/50125/2018-EX (DB) - Final Order No. 50837/2018 - Dated:- 28-2-2018 - Hon ble Justice Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Hon ble Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member ( Technical ) Shri S.N. Panda, Advocate for the appellant Shri H. Saini, DR for the respondent ORDER Per : V. Padmanabhan 1. The present appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal NO. 326/2017-18 dated 16/10/2017. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is manufacturer of PP woven sacks. During the course o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Revenue. 4. The submission on behalf of the appellant is that:- (i) Unit is situated in a backward district and hence covered by the policy of M.P. Government formulated in 2010 with the objection of setting up of new industrial units in such areas. The appellant recovers the VAT/CST at the applicable rate and deposits the same with the M.P. Government Treasury. Subsequently, subsidy sanctioned orders were issued under the Incentive Scheme and the cheque is issued, at the time of assessment by the State Government, directly into the account of the Commercial Tax Department who considers such amount as advanced tax. Such amounts are utilized in subsequent period to discharge the VAT liability. (ii) The Ld. Counsel further subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rgued that they are paying full VAT recovered from the buyers to the account of the State Government. The subsidy amount sanctioned to them on the basis of such VAT paid and hence the same is not includable in the Transaction Value. 8. A similar issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of Shri Cement Ltd. V/s Commissioner decided by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 50189-50191/2018 dated 18/01/2018 in which the Tribunal observed as follows:- 7. We have heard both sides at length and perused the appeal record. As out lined above, the appellants are covered by the Investment Promotion Schemes of the Rajasthan Government. In terms of the various schemes of the Rajasthan Government, the appellants are required to discharge thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 VAT recovered by them at the time of sale of the goods manufactured. A part of such VAT is given back to them in the form of subsidy in Challan 37 B. Such Challans are as good as cash but can be used only for payment of VAT in the subsequent period. In terms of the scheme of the Government of Rajasthan payment of VAT using such Challan are considered legal payments of tax. In view of the above, Revenue is not correct in taking the view that VAT liability discharged by utilizing such subsidy challans cannot be taken as VAT actually paid. 10. It is pertinent to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
