Case Law Details
M/s Maihar Cement Vs CCE & ST Jabalpur (CESTAT Delhi)
The present appeal is against the Order-in-Original No.26/2017 dated 28.09.2017. The appellant is a manufacturer of cement and clinker falling under chapter heading 2523 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Central Excise duty on the cement sold by the appellant was mostly discharged on MRP basis under Section 4A and partly by payment of Central Excise Duty on Transaction Value at Adv. Rates. During the course of audit of the record of the asessee, the departmental officers noticed that during the period 2014-16, the appellant was charging and collecting VAT at the applicable rate in their invoices from their buyers. As per MP Industrial Policy 2004 (MPIIPAS), refund of 25% VAT is provided to the units situated in the backward areas. It was noticed that appellant has received a refund of Rs.41,24,59,791/- under the MP Industrial Promotion Assistance Scheme, 2010. The refund/adjusted amount was deposited by the State Government towards future VAT payment on the appellant’s behalf. The department was of the view that deduction from VAT from Transaction Value is admissible only for the amount of tax actually paid or payable. In the instant case, the State Government deposited the subsidy amount admissible towards payment of VAT on behalf of the appellant but the appellant collected full VAT from their buyers. The department took the view that the difference is required to be included in the Transaction Value for payment of duty. Accordingly, the department issued SCN dated 21.04.2017 proposing to include the above refund amounts in the Transaction Value and demanding the differential amount of Central Excised duty. The adjudicating authority, vide impugned order, relied on judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Super Synotech-2014-TIOL-19 (SC) CX and upheld the demand. Aggrieved by the decision, present appeal has been filed.
2. With the above background, we heard Shri Sanjay Grover, ld Advocate to the appellant and Shri R.K. Mishra, ld DR representing the Revenue
3. The submissions made by the ld Advocate are summarized below:
(i) The SCN relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II Vs Super Synotex (India) Ltd.,2014 (301) ELT 273 (S.C.)
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
