2025 (1) TMI 1594 - AT - Central Excise

VAT Incentive Must Be Included in Assessable Value for Excise Duty Under State VAT Scheme

M/s. Jai Plastech Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Shillong

The CESTAT Kolkata held that the VAT incentive retained by the appellant under the State VAT scheme must be included in the Assessable Value for excise ... Calculation of Excise duty - remission under the State VAT scheme - VAT incentive is includible in the Assessable Value or not - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant was eligible for remission under the State VAT scheme. Therefore, while they were charging 100% VAT on their customers, the appellant was retaining 99% of the VAT and paying only the balance 1% VAT to the State Govt. There is nothing on record that this 99% was required to be paid subsequently in instalments. Thus, it gets clarified that this amount is simply retained by the appellant. This very issue was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cited case law of Commnr. Of Central Excise, Jaipur vs M/S. Super Synotex (India) Ltd. & Ors [2014 (3) TMI 42 - SUPREME COURT] where in it has been held that 'unless the sales tax is actually paid to the Sales Tax Department of the State Government, no benefit towards excise duty can be given under the concept of “transaction value” under Section 4(4)(d), for it is not excludible. As is seen from the facts, 25% of the sales tax collected has been paid to the State exchequer by way of deposit.' It is found that the issue had reached the Apex Court, which has held that the retained portion of VAT is required to be treated as additional consideration and hence the same is to be added to the Assessable Value. Time limitation - HELD THAT:- The very issue was before various Tribunals and the same was finally settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Kolkata Bench in Jalshakti Plastics Industries VS Com (Appeals) CGST & Central Excise [2023 (8) TMI 611 - CESTAT KOLKATA] has held that the confirmed demand pertaining to the extended period is legally not sustainable. The confirmed duty for the extended period is set aside - the appellant is required to pay the differential Excise Duty for the normal period along with interest. However, considering the factual details of the case, all the penalties are set aside - appeal partly allowed. ISSUES: Whether the remission of VAT granted by the State Government constitutes additional consideration includible in the Assessable Value for excise duty purposes.Whether VAT remission received as a subsidy under a State Industrial Policy can be excluded from the Assessable Value.Whether the demand for differential excise duty based on inclusion of VAT remission is barred by limitation for the extended period.Whether penalties imposed for non-inclusion of VAT remission in the Assessable Value are sustainable in light of the factual and legal context. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The remission of VAT retained by the manufacturer is to be treated as 'additional consideration' and is therefore 'required to be added in the assessable value' for the purpose of levy of excise duty, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur vs M/S. Super Synotex (India) Ltd. & Ors.VAT remission given as a subsidy under the State Industrial Policy does not qualify for exclusion from the Assessable Value since the retained amount is not subsequently paid to the State Government and thus forms part of the transaction value under Section 4(4)(d) of the Central Excise law.The demand for the extended period is partly time barred and not sustainable, given that the appellant did not suppress information and relied on prevailing Tribunal decisions prior to the Supreme Court ruling; hence, confirmed duty for the extended period is set aside.Penalties imposed on the appellant are set aside considering the factual details and the appellant's bona fide reliance on earlier Tribunal decisions, despite the eventual Supreme Court ruling against their position. RATIONALE: The legal framework is based on the principle of 'transaction value' under Section 4(4)(d) of the Central Excise Act, which mandates inclusion of all additional considerations received by the manufacturer in the Assessable Value for excise duty.The Apex Court's interpretation in the Super Synotex case clarified that unless the sales tax or VAT remission is actually paid to the State Government, the retained portion constitutes additional consideration and cannot be excluded from the Assessable Value.Earlier Tribunal decisions cited by the appellant were distinguished on the ground that they either did not consider the Supreme Court ruling or involved different factual scenarios where VAT remission was subsequently paid, thus not applicable here.The Tribunal recognized a limitation defense for the extended period demand, acknowledging that the appellant acted in good faith based on the then-prevailing legal position, warranting the setting aside of penalties and demands for the extended period.