TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 821X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CGST- JAIPUR I, GANPATI PLASTFAB LTD., M/S APEX ALUMINIUM EXTRUSION PVT. LTD., M/S MAHA MAYAY STEELS, M/S. TIRUPATI BALAJI FURNACES PVT. LTD., M/S. TRANS ACNR SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., M/S. FRYSTAL PET PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS CGST- ALWAR [ 2023 (3) TMI 1120 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ] where it was held that In the promotion policy involved in the present case, the subsidy does not reduce the sales tax that is required to be paid by the assessee as the entire amount of sales tax collected by the assessee from the customer is paid. The subsidy amount, therefore, cannot be included in the transaction value for the purpose of levy of central excise duty under section 4 of the Excise Act. The decision of the Supre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s:- 30. In view of the above and following the judicial discipline, I hold that the appellants are liable to pay Central Excise Duty on the amount received as said to be subsidy and equal amount of sales tax have been collected from the buyers but retained by them. 4. No one has appeared on behalf of the appellant. 5. The issue, stands settled by an order dated 21.03.2023 of the Tribunal while answering on the reference that had been made on account of difference of opinion between the two Members constituting the Division Bench in M/s Harit Polytech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Central Excise, CGST, Jaipur-I [ 2023 (3) TMI 1120-CESTAT NEW DELHI ] . 6. Shri Rakesh Agarwal, learned authorized representative appearing for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The facts in the present case are difference (should be different) and hence, ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Super Synotex India Ltd. (supra) 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. (supra) 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 g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is paid. The subsidy amount, therefore, cannot be included in the transaction value for the purpose of levy of central excise duty under section 4 of the Excise Act. 32. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the reference is answered in the following manner: a- Subsidy under the promotion policy does not reduce the selling price; b- The amount of subsidy under the promotion policy is not an additional consideration; c- The decision of the Supreme Court in Super Synotex India would not be applicable to the present case; d- The subsidy amount under the promotion policy does not affect the selling price of the goods; e- Section 9 of the Rajasthan VAT Act, 2003 would have no application to the facts of the present case; and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
