Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.26 seconds)Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Commnr. Of Central Excise, Jaipur vs M/S. Super Synotex (India) Ltd. & Ors on 28 February, 2014
4. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized
Representative of the Revenue justifies the confirmed
demand. He cites the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v.
Super Synotex (India) Ltd. [2014 (301) E.L.T. 273
(S.C.)], which lays down that only those taxes which
are actually paid or are payable to the concerned
governments or statutory authorities are deductible
for the purpose of determination of assessable value;
the provision of transaction value under Section
4(3)(d) provides for inclusion of sales tax/VAT in the
transaction value which are not paid or not payable to
Page 6 of 11
Appeal No.: E/77056/2016-DB
any statutory authority at any point of time. Thus, he
submits that the appellant has failed to follow the
correct procedure for assessment of value of their
finished goods in terms of Section 4(a)(1) of the Act
read with Section 4(3)(d) of the Act. The Ld.
Authorized Representative thus justified the
confirmed demands and prayed for rejection of the
instant appeal.
The Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003
Section 4 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs Cce, Delhi-Iii on 20 April, 2010
"Decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab
& Haryana dated 12-8-2016 in the case of
Microtek Forgings CEA No. 32/2016 [2016-
TIOL-1866-HC-P&H-CX]. 12.1 Department
has accepted the order of the Hon'ble High
Court where the Hon'ble Court replying on the
judgment of the Apex Court in the matters of
'Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CCE Delhi, 2014
(307) E.L.T. 625 (SC) and Super Synotex
(India) Ltd. v. CCE Jaipur, 2014 (301) E.L.T.
273 dismissed the departmental appeal. 12.2
In the case, CESTAT relying on Apex Court
decision in the case of 'MarutiSuzuki India Ltd.
Super Syncotex (India) Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 30 July, 1996
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court reversed the decision of the Tribunal, inter alia,
in the case of Super Synotex (India) Ltd. v.
Commissioner of Central Excise [2003 (160) E.L.T.
859 (T)]; the said decision of the Tribunal in Super
Synotex (supra) had also been followed by the
Tribunal in various cases. It is submitted that the
appellant has bona fide believed and proceeded on the
premise that it was eligible for deduction of the entire
VAT amount involved, which it had retained as per the
remission scheme of the State Government, in
determination of the "transaction value" and
consequently, the assessable value of the subject
excisable goods manufactured and cleared by them
during the said period from the factory, basing on the
decision of the Tribunal mentioned hereinabove as
were in force during the material period. Accordingly,
it is argued that it was not the settled position of law
that the remitted amounts of sales tax/VAT were to
be included in the transaction value of the said goods
in terms of Section 4 of the Act, in view of the
conflicting decisions being passed by the Tribunal and
the Hon'ble Apex Court; thus, he contends that there
is no basis to the allegations of fraud, suppression or
wilful mis-statement with intent to evade payment of
duty, on the part of the appellant.
1