TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 1671
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....manufacturer of excisable goods, the appellants were registered with the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities, in terms of Section 6 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with the rules framed there under. On removal of the said manufactured goods from the factory, the appellants used to discharge the Central Excise duty liability, leviable thereon as per the statute. For the disputed financial year 2003-04 (as on 31.03.2004), in the Annual Report, the appellants had shown an amount of Rs. 41,66,475/- as 'other income' and clarified at Point No. 11 therein that "other income includes Rs. 39,17,853/- resulted due to making pre-payment of Deferred Sales Tax liability on Net Present Value basis during the accounting year 2003-04". On verif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the said judgment, he has held that the appellants are not entitled to claim deduction of Sales Tax amount payable from the assessable value under Section 4 ibid. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order dated 08.06.2015, the appellants have preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 3.1 The issue involved in this appeal, for consideration by the Tribunal, is concerning to the valuation provisions contained in Section 4 of the Act of 1944; and their relevance to the incentive scheme, provided by the Sales Tax department for industrial growth in the State of Maharashtra. The features of the said scheme are summarized, as under: 3.2 The Government of Maharashtra had introduced a Package Scheme of Incentives, 1993, with an objective o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent as per NPV, as explained in the above illustration, then it would be deemed as if the full sales tax/VAT liability has been discharged. The appellant, in the present case, had opted for pre-mature payment at NPV prescribed by the Government of Maharashtra. The original order dated 09.02.2014 had also referred to the certificate issued by the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, under the cover of his letter dated 07.06.2006 for full and final settlement on NPV for the assessment year 2003-04. 4.1 The concept of 'transaction value', for the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty, has been defined under sub-section (3)(d) of Section 4 of the Act of 1994, to mean the price actually paid or payable for the goods, when sold to the buyer. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the State Government on account of pre-mature payment cannot be termed as additional consideration, as held by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order. 4.3 We find that the issue arising out of the present dispute, is no more res integra, in view of the order passed by this Tribunal, in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad vs. Uttam Galve Steels Ltd., reported in 2016 (331) E.L.T. 261 (Tri.- Mumbai). Relevant paragraph in the said order is quoted herein below: "40. One of the contentions of the learned Commissioner (AR) was with reference to Explanation in Section 4(1) of the Central Excise Act. In the said Explanation, the words used are "actually paid" with reference to exclusion of sales tax and other....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 view, the Explanation may not be of any help to the Revenue as at the time of clearance, the term 'actually payable' was relevant and not 'actually paid'. Further, the amount of actually payable sales tax has not been varied by the Sales Tax Authorities. In view of the said factual matrix in the present cases, in our considered view, the Explanation does not help the c....