<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (6) TMI 1375 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307207</link>
    <description>VAT retention under the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme was analysed for central excise valuation, with one view treating the amounts received through VAT 37B challans as additional consideration linked to sale price and another viewing them as a distinct investment-linked subsidy outside transaction value. The Members also differed on whether the scheme was materially distinguishable from Supreme Court rulings on sales tax and VAT retention, or whether those authorities still applied because the benefit was quantified by reference to VAT paid. No final majority conclusion emerged, so the dispute was referred for third-member determination, leaving limitation and penalty issues open.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2023 08:01:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=708859" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (6) TMI 1375 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307207</link>
      <description>VAT retention under the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme was analysed for central excise valuation, with one view treating the amounts received through VAT 37B challans as additional consideration linked to sale price and another viewing them as a distinct investment-linked subsidy outside transaction value. The Members also differed on whether the scheme was materially distinguishable from Supreme Court rulings on sales tax and VAT retention, or whether those authorities still applied because the benefit was quantified by reference to VAT paid. No final majority conclusion emerged, so the dispute was referred for third-member determination, leaving limitation and penalty issues open.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307207</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>