TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 288
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is under Section 4A and partly by payment of Central Excise Duty on Transaction Value at Adv. Rates. During the course of audit of the record of the asessee, the departmental officers noticed that during the period 2014-16, the appellant was charging and collecting VAT at the applicable rate in their invoices from their buyers. As per MP Industrial Policy 2004 (MPIIPAS), refund of 25% VAT is provided to the units situated in the backward areas. It was noticed that appellant has received a refund of Rs. 41,24,59,791/- under the MP Industrial Promotion Assistance Scheme, 2010. The refund/adjusted amount was deposited by the State Government towards future VAT payment on the appellant's behalf. The department was of the view that deduction fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thorities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Transaction Value excluded the following, namely, "the amount of duty of excise, sales tax and other axes, if any, actually paid or actually payable on such goods. It held that: "23. In view of the aforesaid position. Unless the sales tax is actually paid to the Sales Tax Department of the State Government, 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 co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om Transaction Value. (iii) They relied on the following case laws: a) M/s FCC Clutch India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Alwar, Final Order No.50488/2018-EX(DB) dated 31.01.2018 b) Shree Cement Ltd Vs CCE, Alwar, Final Order Nos.50189-50191/2018-EX(DB) dated 18.10.2018. c) Commissioner of C.EX. Mumbai-I, Vs Welspun Corp. Ltd, 2017 (358) ELT 630 (Tri.Mumbai) d) Modipon Fibre Company Vs Commissioner of C.EX. Meerut, 2007 (218) ELT 8 (S.C.) 4. The ld DR justified the impugned order. He submitted that the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Super Synotex (supra) is clearly applicable in as much as the VAT collected by the assessee got refunded. 5. Heard both sides and perused the record. 6. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e have heard both sides at length and perused the appeal record. As out lined above, the appellants are covered by the Investment Promotion Schemes of the Rajasthan Government. In terms of the various schemes of the Rajasthan Government, the appellants are required to discharge their VAT liability by making payment of the same. Out of such VAT credited to the Government, a certain portion is disbursed back to them in the form of subsidies. Such disbursement happens in the form of VAT 37 B, challan which can be utilized in subsequent periods to discharge VAT liability. The crux of the dispute in the present case is whether such subsidy amounts are required to be included in the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the appellants, in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Government of Rajasthan payment of VAT using such Challan are considered legal payments of tax. In view of the above, Revenue is not correct in taking the view that VAT liability discharged by utilizing such subsidy challans cannot be taken as VAT actually paid. 10. It is pertinent to reproduce the observations of the Tribunal in the Welspun Corporation Ltd. case "5.1 The Respondent company opted for "Remission of Tax Scheme" and was thus eligible for the Capital subsidy in the form of remission of Sales Tax subject to the conditions to be fulfilled.... The subsidy in the form of remission of sales tax was in fact a percentage of capital investment... Separate assessment orders were thus issued by the assessing officer of ....