Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Subsidy exclusion from assessable value upheld in Central Excise duty appeal</h1> <h3>Assistant Commissioner of CGST, Central Excise, Ujjain Versus M/s Grasim Industries Ltd.</h3> Assistant Commissioner of CGST, Central Excise, Ujjain Versus M/s Grasim Industries Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the subsidy received by the respondent from the State Government is includible in the assessable value of goods for the purpose of Central Excise duty.2. Whether the decision of the Supreme Court in Super Synotex India Ltd. is applicable in the present case.Issue 1:The department appealed against the order setting aside the recovery of Central Excise duty from the respondent, M/s Grasim Industries Ltd., based on the subsidy received under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Investment Promotion Assistance Scheme, 2004. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the subsidy amount should not be included in the transaction value for levy of Central Excise duty under section 4 of the Excise Act. The respondent contended that they had paid the entire Sales Tax to the State Government, making the Supreme Court judgment inapplicable to their case.Issue 2:The reference arose due to a difference of opinion between the two Members of the Division Bench regarding the impact of the subsidy on the selling price of goods. The Member (Technical) held that the subsidy does not reduce the selling price and is not an additional consideration, thus the Super Synotex India Ltd. decision is not applicable. The reference concluded that the subsidy amount does not affect the selling price of the goods and should not be included in the transaction value for Central Excise duty levy.The decision of the Supreme Court in Super Synotex India was considered and deemed inapplicable to the present case based on the reference answer. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld, and the appeal by the department was dismissed.