2023 (6) TMI 409

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant, has been upheld. 2. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the amount of subsidy received by the appellant from the State Government under the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme, 2010 is includible in the assessable value of the goods cleared during the period in dispute i.e. from April 01, 2012 to March 31, 2015, in terms of section 4(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals), while allowing the appeal, made the following observations:- "14. In view of the above, it is clear that in whichever way the aforesaid mechanism or the adjustment is looked into, whether the appellants collects the sales tax and retains p-art of it directly or retains it by way of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er (Judicial) that the subsidy in question does not reduce the selling price of the goods. Nor does it amount to indirect flow from the buyer to the seller. (B) The amount of subsidy under dispute is an independent amount of subsidy received from the Government on the basis of the capital investment and employment generation/wages paid and thus, is not an additional sales consideration, as held by the Member (Judicial). OR The amount of subsidy under dispute is not an independent amount received by the appellant. Rather it is computed with reference to the sales tax paid and thus, is an additional consideration for sales, as held by the Member (Technical). (C) The facts in this appeal are similar to the f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....see collects Rs.2500/- towards sales tax and adjusts the sales tax liability of Rs.1000/- from VAT 37B challan issued by the State Government as subsidy under the promotion policy and deposits the remaining amount of Rs. 1500/- towards sales tax in cash through VAT 37A Challan, then whether this 1000/- can be said to be an additional consideration. The decision of the Supreme Court in Super Synotex India would not be applicable to the facts of the present case as that was a case where 25% of the amount collected as sales tax from the customers was paid by the assessee and the remaining 75% of the amount was retained by the assessee, which amount was treated to be the price of the goods. In the promotion policy involved in the present case, ....