TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , President And Shri Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) Shri P Juneja, Authorized Representative for the appellant None for the respondent ORDER Per Bijay Kumar 1. This appeal is filed by the Commissioner, Central Goods Service Tax and Central Excise, Indore, against the order passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. IND-EXCUS-000-APP-302-303-18-19 dated 31.10.2018, wherein the order passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority has been set aside. 2. The fact of the case is that the respondent is manufacturing Corrugated Boxes falling under chapter heading No. 48191010 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18/01/2018 in case of Shri Cement vs. Commissioner of Central Excise. Revenue submitted that the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeal) is not sustainable in view of the fact that the respondent has collected the assistance of 75 % of VAT paid by them under Scheme MPIIPS of 2018, even though they were charging VAT on the full rate from their buyers. The transaction value, as per Section 4(3) (d) of Central Excise Act permits only actual amount of VAT payable to be deducted, not the whole of amount, as has been done by the appellant. Further, Revenue placed the reliance on the decision of Apex Court in case of CCE, Jaipur vs. Super Synotex (India) Limited. [2014 (310) ELT 273(SC)], wherein it was observed that the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Permanent Assistance Scheme, 2010. The VAT at the applicable rate is paid by the appellant and then subsidy is claimed. The sanctioned subsidy is paid in the form of advance tax to the Commercial Tax Department and the same is adjusted against the tax payable by the appellant for the subsequent tax period. The Department has taken the view that to the extent of the subsidy amount, the appellant has retained the VAT recovered from the buyers and hence such amounts are required to be included in the Transaction Value under Section 4(3) (d) of the Central Excise Act. The appellant however has argued 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 ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decision of the Apex Court in the case of Super Synotex India Ltd. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
