VAT remission amounts retained under State scheme must be included in assessable value for Central Excise duty calculation under Section 4
The CESTAT Kolkata held that VAT remission amounts retained by the appellant under a State VAT scheme must be included in assessable value for Central Excise duty calculation under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Following SC precedent in Super Synotex case, the tribunal ruled that retained VAT constitutes additional consideration requiring inclusion in assessable value. The appellant was directed to pay differential excise duty with interest for the normal period, but all penalties were set aside. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal were:
(a) Whether the amount of VAT/Sales Tax remission or 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 Notices (SCNs) issued for recovery of differential excise duty including the extended period demands are valid and sustainable, particularly examining the applicability of limitation and the suppression of facts clause;
(c) Whether the Circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) dated 17.09.2014 and 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. could be applied retrospectively to the appellant's case;
(d) Whether penalties and interest imposed along with the duty demand are justified.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue (a): Inclusion of VAT remission/incentive in Assessable Value
Relevant legal framework and precedents: The principal statutory provision under consideration was Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which governs the determination of assessable value for excise duty. The Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur vs M/s Super Synotex (India) Ltd. & Ors (2014) 301 ELT 273 (SC) was the pivotal precedent. This judgment held that incentives granted by way of VAT remission by the State Government, which are retained by the manufacturer and not paid to the State exchequer, constitute additional consideration and must be included in the assessable value for excise duty.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the appellant, while charging 100% VAT on customers, retained 99% of the VAT under the State's remission scheme and paid only 1% to the State Government. Since there was no evidence that the retained amount was payable subsequently, the Tribunal concurred with the Supreme Court's view that the retained VAT remission is effectively a price benefit and forms part of the transaction value.
Key evidence and findings: The undisputed fact was the retention of 99% VAT remission by the appellant. The Tribunal observed that the appellant did not pay this amount to the State Government and thus it was not a mere subsidy but an additional consideration for the goods sold.
Application of law to facts: Applying the Supreme Court's ratio, the Tribunal held that the retained VAT remission must be added to the assessable value under Section 4(4)(d) of the Central Excise Act. The appellant's reliance on case laws holding the contrary was rejected because those cases either did not consider the Supreme Court ruling or dealt with situations where VAT was paid subsequently.
Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant argued that the remission was a subsidy for capital investment and not additional consideration, relying on various tribunal decisions. However, the Tribunal distinguished these on facts and legal grounds, emphasizing the binding Supreme Court precedent.
Conclusion: The Tribunal conclusively held that the VAT remission retained by the appellant is includible in the assessable value for excise duty.
Issue (b): Validity of Show Cause Notices and Limitation
Relevant legal framework and precedents: The limitation period for issuing demand notices under the Central Excise Act and the conditions under which extended period demands can be sustained, particularly suppression of facts or willful misstatement, were examined. The Tribunal relied on the recent Final Order in Jalshakti Plastics Industries vs Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise (2023), which held that extended period demands are not sustainable where there was no suppression of facts.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the appellant had not suppressed any information from the department. Earlier Tribunal decisions had favored the appellant's position, and the Supreme Court's ruling came subsequently. Therefore, the appellant could not be faulted for non-inclusion of the VAT remission in assessable value prior to the Supreme Court's decision.
Key evidence and findings: The absence of any concealment or suppression by the appellant was a key factual finding. The appellant had acted in accordance with the then-prevailing legal position.
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that extended period demands require suppression or fraud. Since none was found, demands for the extended period were set aside.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued for sustaining the extended period demands, but the Tribunal rejected this on the basis of lack of suppression and settled legal principles.
Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the excise duty demand for the normal period of limitation but set aside the demand for the extended period.
Issue (c): Retrospective application of Supreme Court judgment and CBEC Circular
Relevant legal framework and precedents: The appellant contended that the Supreme Court judgment dated 28.02.2014 and the CBEC Circular dated 17.09.2014 could not be applied retrospectively and that reliance on the Circular caused denial of natural justice.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal did not find merit in the appellant's submission. It noted that the Supreme Court judgment is binding and applies to all relevant periods unless specifically excluded. The Circular merely provided instructions in light of the Supreme Court ruling and did not infringe principles of natural justice.
Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal observed that the appellant's case was adjudicated post the Supreme Court ruling and Circular, and the appellant had the opportunity to present arguments.
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the Supreme Court judgment to the appellant's case and found no procedural irregularity or denial of natural justice.
Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant's argument on non-retrospective application was rejected as the judgment clarified the law applicable to the period in question.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court judgment and the CBEC Circular were rightly applied in the adjudication process.
Issue (d): Penalty and Interest
Relevant legal framework and precedents: Penalties under the Central Excise Act are contingent upon the existence of culpable conduct such as suppression or fraud. Interest is payable on confirmed duty demands for delayed payment.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: Since the Tribunal found no suppression or concealment by the appellant, penalties were not justified. However, interest on the differential duty for the normal period was upheld as per statutory provisions.
Key evidence and findings: Absence of any fraudulent intent or suppression was critical to the penalty decision.
Application of law to facts: Penalties were set aside, but interest was confirmed.
Conclusion: Penalties were quashed; interest on confirmed duty was upheld.
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."
Core principles established include:
- VAT remission or incentive retained by the manufacturer and not paid to the State Government must be included in the assessable value for excise duty.
- Extended period demands under the Central Excise Act require suppression or fraud; absence thereof renders such demands unsustainable.
- Penalties are not leviable in the absence of suppression or willful misstatement.
- Supreme Court judgments clarifying the law are applicable to pending cases and cannot be denied retrospective effect where applicable.
Final determinations:
- The demand of Central Excise duty including the VAT remission retained by the appellant is upheld for the normal period of limitation along with interest;
- The demand for the extended period is set aside due to lack of suppression;
- All penalties imposed are quashed.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
