VAT amounts retained under state remission scheme must be included in assessable value for Central Excise duty calculation

CESTAT Kolkata held that VAT amounts collected but retained by the appellant under a state remission scheme must be included in assessable value for Central Excise duty calculation. Following SC precedent in Super Synotex case, the tribunal ruled that retained VAT constitutes additional consideration under transaction value provisions. The demand for excise duty during normal limitation period with interest was upheld, but penalties were set aside. Extended period demand was rejected. Matter remanded to adjudicating authority for verification of duty payment calculations.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal were:

(a) Whether the amount of VAT remission or sales tax incentive retained by the appellant under the State VAT scheme is includible in the assessable value for the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944;

(b) Whether the Show Cause Notice issued for recovery of excise duty on such VAT remission was barred by limitation, particularly in the absence of any suppression of facts by the appellant;

(c) Whether the retrospective application of the Supreme Court judgment dated 28.02.2014 in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II vs. M/s Super Synotex (India) Ltd. is permissible in the facts of the present case;

(d) Whether the penalties and interest demanded along with the excise duty are justified;

(e) Verification of the payment made by the appellant towards excise duty on VAT remission for the normal period.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

(a) Inclusion of VAT remission in Assessable Value

The appellant contended that the remission of VAT granted by the State Government was a subsidy or incentive for capital investment and hence should not be treated as additional consideration to be included in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. They relied on various Tribunal decisions holding that VAT incentives are not includible in the assessable value. The appellant also submitted compliance with the Supreme Court judgment dated 28.02.2014 by making payment of excise duty on VAT remission for the period March 2014 to March 2015.

The Revenue's Authorized Representative (AR) countered by relying on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur vs. M/s Super Synotex (India) Ltd., which held that the amount of VAT remission or sales tax incentive retained by the assessee is to be treated as additional consideration and must be included in the assessable value for excise duty purposes. The AR also cited a recent decision of the same Tribunal bench in Jalshakti Plastics Industries vs. Commissioner (Appeals) CGST & Central Excise, which followed the Supreme Court ruling and held that VAT incentives retained by the assessee are includible in assessable value.

The Tribunal noted that the facts were undisputed: the appellant collected 100% VAT from customers but retained 99% of it under the remission scheme, paying only 1% to the State Government, with no evidence that the retained portion was to be subsequently paid. This retention was thus treated as additional consideration forming part of the transaction value under Section 4(4)(d) of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal extensively quoted the Supreme Court's reasoning that unless the sales tax is actually paid to the State Government, the retained amount cannot be excluded from assessable value.

The Tribunal distinguished the appellant's cited case laws on the ground that those either did not consider the Supreme Court judgment or involved situations where VAT remission was required to be utilized for subsequent VAT payments, which was not the case here.

(b) Limitation and Suppression of Facts

The appellant argued that the Show Cause Notice was barred by limitation and that there was no suppression of facts to justify an extended period of limitation. The Tribunal agreed with this contention, relying on the recent decision in Jalshakti Plastics Industries, which held that where the appellant had not suppressed any information and where earlier Tribunal decisions supported the exclusion of VAT remission from assessable value, the extended period demand was not sustainable. The Tribunal therefore set aside the demand confirmed for the extended period of limitation.

(c) Retrospective Application of Supreme Court Judgment

The appellant contended that the Supreme Court judgment dated 28.02.2014 should not be applied retrospectively to the facts prior to that date. The Tribunal's analysis implicitly supported this view by distinguishing the normal period from the extended period and allowing excise duty recovery only for the normal period, in line with limitation principles and the timing of the Supreme Court ruling.

(d) Penalty and Interest

The Tribunal held that while excise duty and interest for the normal period were payable, the imposition of penalties was not justified given the factual circumstances, compliance by the appellant, and the lack of suppression or mala fide intent. Hence, all penalties were set aside.

(e) Verification of Payment for Normal Period

The appellant submitted payment of Rs.88,935/- towards excise duty on VAT remission for March 2014 to March 2015, supported by e-payment challans. However, this payment was not mentioned in either the original order or the appellate order. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for verification of the correctness of duty payment for the normal period along with interest.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"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. The rest of the amount has been retained by the assessee. That has to be treated as the price of the goods under the basic fundamental conception of 'transaction value' as substituted with effect from 1.7.2000. Therefore, the assessee is bound to pay the excise duty on the said sum after the amended provision had brought on the statute book."

This principle, extracted verbatim from the Supreme Court judgment, formed the cornerstone of the Tribunal's decision.

Core principles established:

- VAT remission or sales tax incentives retained by the manufacturer and not paid to the State Government constitute additional consideration and must be included in the assessable value for Central Excise duty under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

- The extended period of limitation for demand of excise duty cannot be invoked in the absence of suppression or concealment of facts by the assessee.

- Penalties are not imposable where there is no mala fide intent or suppression, and compliance has been made with the law as understood at the relevant time.

- Retrospective application of judicial decisions is subject to limitation principles and cannot be used to extend demand beyond the normal period.

Final determinations:

- The demand of Central Excise duty including interest for the normal period is upheld.

- The demand confirmed for the extended period of limitation is set aside.

- All penalties imposed are set aside.

- The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to verify the correctness of duty payment for the normal period along with interest.

---