2023 (7) TMI 821

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Commissioner for recovery of Central Excise duty from the appellant, 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 2011-12 to 2015-16, 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:- " 30. In view of the above and following the judicial discipline, I hold that the appellants are liable to pay Central Excise Duty on the amount received as said to be subsidy....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e 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 facts in the case of Super Synotex India Ltd. (supra) as held by the Member (Technical) OR The facts in the present case are difference (should be different) and hence, ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Super Synotex India Ltd. (supra)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....T 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, the subsidy does not reduce the sales tax that is required to be paid by the assessee as the entire amount of sales tax collected by the assessee from the customer is paid. The subsidy amount, therefore, cannot be included in the transaction value for the purpose ....