Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether subsidy received under the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Policy, 2003 was liable to be included in the assessable value as additional consideration and whether the demands confirmed on that basis could survive.
Analysis: The subsidy was granted under the promotion policy on the basis of capital investment and employment generation and was not shown to be linked to the price charged from buyers. The amount was not an additional sales consideration and did not reduce or depress the selling price of the goods. The factual matrix was held to be different from the situation dealt with in Super Synotex India, and Section 9 of the Rajasthan VAT Act, 2003 was held to have no application to the controversy. Once the subsidy was not includible in the assessable value, the foundation for the duty demand failed.
Conclusion: The subsidy was not includible in the assessable value as additional consideration, and the duty demands and connected orders could not be sustained.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the impugned orders were set aside, with the dispute decided in favour of the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: A government subsidy granted under an investment promotion policy, when not linked to the sale price and not constituting flow of consideration from the buyer, does not form part of the assessable value for central excise purposes.