https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465617 The dominant issue concerned valuation under s. 4(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in a refund claim, specifically whether sales tax/VAT could be treated as "actually paid" when the State subsequently remitted the amount back to the assessee as an incentive. The Tribunal held that once the State sales tax authority assessed the sales tax as paid, the Central Excise Department could not deny payment merely because the amount was later refunded as an incentive, and therefore the statutory condition stood satisfied; consequentially, the assessee's valuation/refund position was sustained at the Tribunal stage. The SC issued notice, keeping the matter open. en-us Thu, 25 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Jan 2026 08:03:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465617 The dominant issue concerned valuation under s. 4(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in a refund claim, specifically whether sales tax/VAT could be treated as "actually paid" when the State subsequently remitted the amount back to the assessee as an incentive. The Tribunal held that once the State sales tax authority assessed the sales tax as paid, the Central Excise Department could not deny payment merely because the amount was later refunded as an incentive, and therefore the statutory condition stood satisfied; consequentially, the assessee's valuation/refund position was sustained at the Tribunal stage. The SC issued notice, keeping the matter open. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 25 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465617