2019 (5) TMI 210

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....2018, wherein the order passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority has been set aside. 2. The fact of the case is that the respondent is manufacturing "Corrugated Boxes" falling under chapter heading No. 48191010 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 3. The respondent clears their final products upon payment of Central Excise duty and also discharges VAT/CST on intra-state as well as inter-state sales made by it. The respondent plant is located at industrial area, Maxi, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh and falls under the category of backward district. The respondent was getting refund of 50 % or 75 % of VAT paid by them under Madhya Pradesh Industrial Promotion Assistance Scheme, 2010 and the cheques of such amount sanctioned under the scheme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....whole of amount, as has been done by the appellant. Further, Revenue placed the reliance on the decision of Apex Court in case of CCE, Jaipur vs. Super Synotex (India) Limited. [2014 (310) ELT 273(SC)], wherein it was observed that the respondent is entitled to get the deduction of the amount actually paid to the State Government towards the VAT and the amount of refund of VAT directly paid to the respondent by the State Government are not admissible for deduction from the transaction value. The Adjudicating Authority was of the view that as per Section 4(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the refund amount of VAT is to be treated as cum duty price and, accordingly, duty demand was determined. 4. Accordingly, the learned Authorised Repr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xcise Act. The appellant however has argued that they are paying full VAT recovered from the buyers to the account of the State Government. The subsidy amount sanctioned to them on the basis of such VAT paid and hence the same is not includable in the Transaction Value. 8. A similar issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of Shri Cement Ltd. V/s Commissioner decided by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 50189-50191/2018 dated 18/01/2018 in which the Tribunal observed as follows:- 7. We 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 Governme....