TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1545
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....passed by the Adjudicating Authority / Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam by which demand an amount of Rs. 3,53,642/- being the excise duty payable on the VAT/CST reimbursed by the Andhra Pradesh State Government from the appellant under Section 11A(10) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with interest and also imposed called penalty against appellant. 2. The facts in brief, the appellant unit have received an amount from Industries and Commerce (IP) Department of AP State Government under Industrial Investment and promotion policy 2005-10. 3. The Show Cause Notice No. C.N. V/1/24/2015-16-Gr..IV-KKD dated 27.01.2016, wherein it was contended that the said amount issued by Industries and Commerce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... thus impugned order is liable to set aside on limitation also. 7. Learned Representative of Department reiterates the findings given by Adjudicating Authority and also relied on following judgments: i) M/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur Vs National Engg. Industries [2015 (320) E.L.T. 27 (S.C.)] ii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - I Vs Welspun Corporation Ltd., [2017 (358) E.L.T. 630 (Tri-Mumbbai)] iii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur Vs Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd., [2015 (318) E.L.T. 626 (S.C.)] iv) Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi - III Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., [2014 (307) E.L.T. 625 (S.C.)] 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant in reply submits that the judgment of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inable. 11. Heard Learned Counsel for the appellant Shri Ankur Upadhyay and Learned Representative of Department Shri B. Sangameshwar Rao and perused the records with their submissions. 12. The issue in brief that the reimbursement of incentive / grant of VAT/CST by Andhra Pradesh State Government to Appellant and revenue's contention is that the said amount received by the appellant is liable to be included in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or otherwise. 13. Principal Bench CEATAT New Delhi in the case of M/s Harit Polytech Pvt Ltd., decided by three member bench held that, amount of subsidy under the promotion policy is not an additional consideration and also held that the subsidy amount und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rds incentive of Capital investment cannot be a part of the transaction value. The relevant part of the judgment as thus: "5.10. Thus, in our view, once the Sales Tax Department has assessed the Sales Tax as paid, the Central Excise Department cannot contend that since the State Government has remitted the amount back to the appellants as incentive, Sales Tax was not paid by them. Hence we find that once the Sales Tax Department assessed the Sales Tax as paid, the condition of Section 4(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 stands fulfilled". "5.11. We also find that remission and exemption was separately considered by the Govt. of Gujarat. While, Section 5 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 provides in sub-section (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... earthquake ravaged region of kutch of State of Gujarat. Instead of recovering sales tax and then refunding the same as capital subsidy, the State Government had remitted the same to appellants. Consequently like CST since VAT which was payable was actually paid the same is required to be excluded from the transaction value. Hence for this reason also the sales tax remitted by the Government towards incentive of capital investment cannot be a part of the transaction value". 15. In the case of Shree Cement Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Alwar decided by CESTAT Delhi by following the decision of the Tribunal that there is no justification for inclusion in the assessable value, the VAT amounts paid by the assessee. 16. Judgment....