2025 (7) TMI 1637

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....M/s. Umadutt Industries Ltd., (hereinafter referred as the Appellant) are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under CET 39 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant was issued with a Show Cause Notice dated 04.07.2014 proposing recovery of cenvat of Rs.2,12,004/- for the period June 2013 to September 2013, along with interest and penalty. It was alleged in the SCN that the Appellant have evaded payment of central excise duty by way on non-inclusion of the amount of VAT/Sales Tax collected and retained by them in the assessable value in violation of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The said notices were adjudicated and the Ld. adjudicating authority, wherein he has confirmed the d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tate Govt. is nothing but subsidy for having invested in the capital equipment's in the unit. Therefore, such subsidy cannot be taken as additional benefit being received by the appellant so as to add the value of remission to the Assessable Value, as has been erroneously done by the lower authorities. 4. The following case laws may be relied upon in support of the above: (i) 2017 (358) E.L.T. 630 (Tri. - Mumbai) COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-I Vs WELSPUN CORPORATION LTD. 2019 (366) E.L.T. 900 (Tri. - Del.) (ii) SHREE CEMENT LTD. Vs CCE Alwar 2019 (370) E.L.T. 970 (Tri. - Delhi.) SELECT POLY PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Vs CCE Jaipur Excise Appeal No.76498 of 2016 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the Revenue submits that while the case....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Jaipur vs M/S. Super Synotex (India) Ltd. & Ors - 2014 (301) ELT 273 (SC) wherein it has been held as under: "4. The Commissioner of Excise repelled the stand of the assessee, interpreted the benefit granted to the assessee as partial exemption and, taking certain other facts into consideration, came to hold that the assessee had deliberately with an intent to evade payment of duty had suppressed the fact that though it was availing partial sales tax exemption under the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme of 1989 for the relevant period upto 75% of tax liability, yet it was paying only 25% of the tax leviable despite collecting additional consideration to the extent of the amount of sales tax and, therefore, the additional amount collected under t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n 2014 (301) ELT273, has held that the sales tax concession retained by the assesses is required to be added in the assessable value for the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty. " 10. By relying on the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we hold that the sales tax concession retained by the Appellant is required to be added in the assessable value for the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty. 11. On the other hand, we find that the case laws cited by the appellant have either not considered the judgement of the Supreme Court cited supra, or were dealing the issue wherein the VAT challans were required to be utilized for their subsequent payment of VAT. Therefore, we find that these case laws cannot come to the rescue of the ....