State subsidy not added to excise value, and procedural endorsement cannot defeat abatement where notification did not require it.

VAT subsidy received under the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme, 2010 was treated as State financial assistance after VAT had been deposited and adjusted under the scheme, so it was not additional consideration from the buyer and could not be added to assessable value for central excise duty. Abatement under Notification No. 26/2012-ST could not be denied for absence of an endorsement or declaration on non-availment of Cenvat credit where that procedural condition was not part of the notification, the claimant was not acting as an output service provider, and the later amendment supported that the endorsement was not mandatory in the stated circumstances.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether VAT subsidy received under the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme, 2010 was includible in the assessable value for levy of central excise duty; (ii) Whether abatement under Notification No. 26/2012-ST could be denied for want of endorsement or declaration regarding non-availment of Cenvat credit by the service recipient.

Issue (i): Whether VAT subsidy received under the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme, 2010 was includible in the assessable value for levy of central excise duty.

Analysis: The subsidy was granted under a State incentive scheme after the entire VAT collected had been deposited and thereafter adjusted through the prescribed mechanism. The amount received under the scheme did not represent additional consideration flowing from the buyer but a financial assistance granted by the State. The assessable value under the excise law could not be expanded to include such subsidy where the tax was legally discharged and the amount was returned under the incentive framework.

Conclusion: The VAT subsidy was not includible in the transaction value, and the demand on that count could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether abatement under Notification No. 26/2012-ST could be denied for want of endorsement or declaration regarding non-availment of Cenvat credit by the service recipient.

Analysis: The relevant notification required non-availment of Cenvat credit by the service provider. The additional procedural requirement sought to be enforced through the departmental circular was not part of the notification as originally framed. The appellant, being only a recipient of service and not an output service provider liable to discharge tax in that capacity, was outside the Cenvat credit scheme. The subsequent amendment also supported the appellant's stand that the disputed endorsement was not a mandatory condition in the appellant's situation.

Conclusion: Denial of the abatement was unjustified, and the benefit of the notification could not be refused on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable on both counts and was set aside, resulting in relief to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Financial assistance under a State incentive scheme that follows deposit of the tax and is not an additional consideration for the supply cannot be added to transaction value, and a procedural condition not expressly mandated by the exemption notification cannot be imposed to deny abatement, particularly where the claimant is outside the Cenvat credit regime.

---