Just a moment...
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 Industrial Promotion Subsidy received under the State incentive scheme constituted additional consideration and was includible in the assessable value for Central Excise duty.
Analysis: The subsidy was linked to eligible fixed capital investment and industrial promotion under the State scheme, not to any individual sale transaction. Section 4(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 excludes sales tax and other taxes actually paid or payable, and the relevant valuation must be determined at the time of removal. Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 applies only to additional consideration flowing directly or indirectly from the buyer. The subsidy did not flow from the buyer, was not payable by the buyer, and the subsequent receipt of the incentive could not retroactively alter the transaction value. The reasoning in the identical earlier decision was adopted.
Conclusion: The subsidy did not form part of the transaction value and was not includible in the assessable value. The demand and penalty could not be sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: A post-sale State subsidy linked to capital investment and industrial promotion, and not flowing from the buyer, is outside the scope of transaction value under Section 4(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000.