Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 the amount retained under the sales tax deferment and pre-mature repayment scheme at net present value was includible in the assessable value of the goods as additional consideration for levy of central excise duty.
Analysis: The dispute turned on valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. The Tribunal followed earlier decisions holding that incentives or subsidies linked to a State sales tax scheme do not reduce the selling price and do not amount to additional consideration. It also relied on the settled position that, where the entire sales tax collected from buyers is discharged under the scheme and the benefit received is only a subsidy from the State, the retained amount cannot be treated as part of the transaction value for central excise purposes.
Conclusion: The sales tax incentive amount was not includible in the assessable value and the demand of central excise duty, along with the consequential penalty proposal, could not be sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: A State sales tax subsidy or incentive received under a deferment scheme is not additional consideration for the sale of excisable goods and cannot be added to transaction value under central excise valuation provisions.