TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 435
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme, 2014 (RIPS). The said issue has been decided by the Tribunal in series of decisions as cited by the appellant. 3. The appellant -assessee is engaged in the manufacture of glaze tiles and is registered with the Central Excise Department under Central Excise Registration No. AAGCR4458LEM002. It appears to the Department that the appellant had undervalued the finished goods and short paid the Central Excise duty by not including the amount of subsidy received from the Sales Tax Department for arriving at the transaction value of the goods cleared. Separate show causes dated 22.08.2019 and 26.03.2019 were issued for the period April, 2017 to June, 2017 and April, 2016 to March, 2017 respectively. The said....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rajasthan had introduced the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme, 2014 with a view to promote investment in the State and to generate employment opportunities through such investment. The scheme provided for various exemptions and at the same time provided for investment subsidy. I find that the appellant is covered by the investment promotion scheme of the Rajasthan Government and in terms thereof they are required to discharge their VAT liability by making payment of the same. The VAT so credited to the Government, certain portion is disbursed as VAT to the appellant in the form of subsidies in form of VAT 37B challan which can then be utilised in the subsequent period towards discharge of VAT liability. The appellant has been followin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ixed assets. The condition of the remission amongst others included to remain in production, employment of certain percentage of persons in assessee unit, and numerous other conditions as brought out in Para 9 of the impugned Order-in-Appeal." 7. I find that the aforesaid decision have been consistently followed by the Tribunal subsequently, in the case of Select Poly Products Pvt. Ltd., vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Jaipur - 2019 (370) ELT 970 (Tri. Delhi), Honda Motorcycle and Scooters India Pvt. Ltd., vs. Commr. of CGST, Cus. & C.Ex, Alwar -2020 (374) ELT 941 (Tri. Del.). 8. In the show cause notice dated 22.08.2019 for the period April, 2016 to March, 2017, the Department has invoked the extended period of limitation on the ground that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll arises. As already discussed above, once sales tax stands paid as per the Sales Tax Department, the Central Excise Department cannot contend and allege a short levy on the ground that some amount thereof has been remitted back to the appellants. Thus, there appears no alleged suppression of facts nor even the mis-representation. The entire above discussion rather clarifies the misunderstanding on part of the Department about the relevant provisions specially the definition of transaction value, under Rule 4(3)(d) CEA. The appellant cannot be held liable for the said wrong on part of the Department. The evidence about any positive act except the allegation of using the VAT Challans for discharging the VAT liability for subsequent period c....