TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1109
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jasthan Industrial Promotion Scheme, 2010 is includible in the assessable value of the goods cleared during the relevant period or not? 2. The facts of the case are as under: 2.1 The Appellant is, inter alia, engaged in the manufacturing of cement falling under Chapter 25 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short "CETA"). The Appellant was duly registered under the Central Excise law having Registration No. AABCM6602QXM001. 2.2 The Appellant clears final products after paying appropriate Central Excise duty and filing the statutorily prescribed ER-1 returns of production and removal of goods from time to time. Further, the Appellant also discharges Value Added Tax ("VAT")/ Central Sales Tax ("CST") on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... State Government along with details of goods cleared by the appellant. In response, the appellant, vide letter No. MCL/GST dated 1.8.2018, furnished the aforesaid details. 2.6 On the basis of the aforesaid, the impugned show cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing to demand and recover excise duty amounting to Rs.22,37,884/-, alleging that the sales tax subsidy received in the form of VAT challans, which is used to pay VAT/CST liability of the subsequent periods, amounts to retention of VAT/CST amount collected by the appellant from its customers and thus, is liable to be included in the transaction value of the final products of the appellant. 2.7 The adjudicating authority dropped the demand against the appellant. The Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....our consideration is whether the amount of subsidy received by the appellant under the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme, 2010 from the State Government is includible in the assessable value of the goods cleared during the period in dispute in terms of the transaction value as defined in Section 4(3)(d)of the Act. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant apart from relying on several decisions of the Tribunal has referred to the recent decision in Harit Polytech Pvt Ltd versus CCE & GST, Jaipur-I, 2 rendered by the Principal Bench on a reference made to resolve the difference of opinion. The learned Authorised Representative had very fairly accepted that the present issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. 6. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omotion 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 of levy of central excise duty under Section 4 of the Excise Act. Accordingly, it was concluded :- "31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the reference is answered in the following manner:- a- Subsidy under the promotion policy does not reduce the selling price; b- the amount of subsidy under the promotion policy is not an additional consideration; c- The decision of the Supreme Court in Super Synot....