2024 (7) TMI 1733

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d 69 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Government of Maharashtra had introduced a Package Scheme of Incentives, 1993, with an objective of promoting industrial growth in Maharashtra. According to the said Scheme, an eligible assessee can collect CST/VAT from its purchasers and pay the same to Government of Maharashtra on expiry of a deferred period. The appellant was one of the eligible units and granted the benefits under the said scheme. The appellant was permitted to charge Sales Tax for the sale of goods and the amount of sales tax so collected was permitted to be retained and to pay in 5 equal yearly installments on expiry of the 10th year as computed from the last date of filing return. In December 2002....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... adjudged demand of duty. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. We find that the issue arising out of the present dispute is no more res integra in view of the Final Order No. A/85509-85510/2024 dated 14.05.2024 by this Tribunal, in the case of Hardoli Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur. By relying upon the earlier order passed in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad Vs. Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. - 2016 (331) ELT 261 (Tri-Mumbai), the Tribunal in the case of Hardoli Paper Mills Ltd. (supra) has allowed the appeal by holding as under: - "4. We find that an identical issue to the present case has been dealt with by the Tribuna....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re given an option to make prepayment of the deferred sales tax based on the Net Present Value. Thus, though the Net Present Value may be less than the actually payable amount but the fact remains the timings have changed. The difference between the amount actually paid and actually payable has arisen due to the time when the amount was paid and originally stipulated date of payment under the deferral scheme. As discussed earlier, the concept of actually paid or actually payable is to be determined at the time of removal. Thus the amount actually paid cannot be determined at some other time. In any case, in the present case, the amount payable has not been varied by the Sales Tax Authorities. Under the facts of the present cases, in our vie....