TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 613
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Chapter Heading 39 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Department alleged that the appellants have failed to pay the Central Excise duty on the sales tax collected from the buyers and retained by them to the extent of sales tax liability discharged through utilisation of subsidy with intent to evade payment of duty during the period 2011-12 to 2013-14. Department in addition observed that the appellant has received wages and employment subsidy sanctioned under Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme 2003/10 (RIPS) under various VAT 37B Challans and have adjusted the amount therein for discharge of its liability towards sales tax. However, the Department alleged the appellant to have paid short Central Excise du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....STAT-Mum, Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. CCG&ST, Udaipur-I, Final Order No. 52014/2018 dated 24.05.2018 and Rajasthan Prime Steel Processing Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Alwar 2018(4) TMI 1445-CESTAT-New Delhi. 5. Ld. DR while justifying the impugned orders has submitted that w.e.f. 01.07.2000 appellant was bound to pay excise duty on the amount retained by them out of the amount which was collected by them as VAT. The authorities below have rightly included the amount which the Rajasthan Government has refunded to the appellants as the part of VAT paid in the assessable/ transaction value. Finally, relying upon the case of Super Synotex India Ltd. reported as 2014 (301) E.L.T. 273 (S.C.), Ld. DR has prayed for the dismissal of Appeal. 6. Aft....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 4D of Central Excise Act, the same is not includable in transaction value. Tribunal Mumbai in the case of CCE, Mumbai Vs. M/s Welspun Corporation Ltd. 2017 TIOL 1287 (Tri. - Mum.) has held that once the Sales Tax Department has assessed the sales tax as paid, the Central Excise Department cannot contend that since the State Government has remitted the amount back to the appellants as incentive, sales tax was not paid by them. After the assessment by the Sales Tax Department for sales tax to have been paid, condition of Section 4(3)(d) of Central Excise Act, 1944 stands fulfilled. We are also of the opinion that there is a difference between remission and exemption. As while in case of exemption, the levy itself is statutorily exhaus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made by the buyer to the assessee. However, in the instant case, the subsidy has been paid to it by the State Government. Only the mode of payment is by way of crediting the sales tax head under VAT challan in favour of the appellant. Thus, it could not be said that the amount is in the nature of additional consideration. 9. We also draw our support from the case Shree Cement Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Alwar 2018 (Vol-I) TMI 915-CESTAT-Mum wherein it was held that where assesses are required to remit the VAT recovered by them at the time of sale of goods manufacture and a part of such VAT is given back to them in the form of subsidy in VAT 37b Challans, such Challans are as good as cash but for the limited purpose of being used for the payment of....