2022 (4) TMI 1102

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....NO.76006 of 2017 April 2011 to October 2014 25.02.2016 Excise Appeal NO.76007 of 2017 March 2011 to March 2014 25.02.2016 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellant is a manufacturer of MS Billets, Rods, Coils classifiable under CETH No.7213 1090 and 7207 1920 and was clearing its finished goods on payment of appropriate duty of excise claiming Area Based Exemption under Notification No.20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007 (as amended). That the Appellant had discharged the Assam VAT liability during the relevant period from March 2011 to March 2014 and October 2014 by utilizing the VAT remission allowed as subsidy by the Assam Government, pursuant to Assam Industries (Tax Exemption) Scheme, 2009. Show Cause Not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....928,106 37,106,170 3,710,617 74,212 37,106 3,821,936 March,2012 4,674,877 4,160,624 499,275 9,985 4,993 514,253 April,2012 to March,2013 55,852,128 49,708,195 5,964,983 119,300 59,650 6,143,933 April 2013 to March, 2014 76,360,455 67,960,533 8,155,264 163,205 81,553 8,399,922 Total 179,663,499 160,610,892 18,497,676 3,69,954 1,84,977 19,052,607 That by the common Order-in-Appeal dated 04.09.2017 in respect of two Show Cause Notices, the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals), Guwahati upheld the inclusion of the amount of VAT remission in the assessable value because only 1% of the Sales Tax collected from the buyer was deposited in the State Govt's exch....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....014. He further submits that the Ld.Adjudicating authority as well as Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) has given their detailed findings for invocation of extended period of limitation and reiterated the said findings. 5. Heard both sides through video conferencing and perused the Appeal records. 6. The Appellant manufactured and cleared excisable goods, the value of which are assessed under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Appellant has availed VAT remission under Assam Industries (Tax Exemption) Order, 2005 w.e.f. March 2011. As per terms of the above remission scheme the Appellant charged and collected 100% of the VAT payable from their buyers, retained 99% of the same and paid only 1% to the State Government. Departmen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....td. vs. CCE Delhi, 2014(307) ELT 625(SC) and Super Synotex (India) Ltd. vs. CCE Jaipur, 2014 (301) ELT 273 dismissed the departmental appeal. 12.2 In the case, CESTAT relying on Apex Court decision in the case of 'Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. CCE Delhi, 2014(307) ELT 625(SC) and Super Synotex (India) Ltd. vs. CCE Jaipur, 2014 (301) ELT 273 had held that amount of sales tax concession retained by the respondent is required to be added in the assessable for levy of Central Excise Duty. However CESTAT held that extended period of limitation would not apply. Deciding the departmental appeal, High Court has held that CESTAT in its order has observed that under Circular dated 30.06.2000 CBEC had clarified that such amount retained by....