2025-VIL-1053-CESTAT-KOL-CE
  1. Home
  2. 2025-VIL-1053-CESTAT-KOL-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise - Assessable Value , VAT Incentive Scheme, Inclusion of Retained VAT - Whether VAT incentive retained by assessee under State VAT scheme is includible in assessable value for Central Excise duty - HELD - The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur vs M/s Super Synotex (India) Ltd. & Ors has definitively settled this issue by holding that unless sales tax is actually paid to State Government, no benefit can be given under "transaction value" concept under Section 4(4)(d) of Central Excise Act. The retained portion of VAT constitutes additional consideration received by assessee and must be treated as part of transaction value. Since 99% VAT was retained by appellant and not paid to State exchequer, this amount represents price of goods and is includible in assessable value for Central Excise duty calculation – The VAT incentive retained by assessee is includible in assessable value for Central Excise duty purposes - Considering factual matrix where legal position was unsettled and various Tribunal decisions supported assessee's position that VAT incentives were not includible in assessable value, appellant acted with bona fide belief. There was no deliberate intent to evade duty. Penalty provisions are penal in nature and should not be imposed when assessee has acted in good faith based on prevailing legal precedents - All penalties and demand for extended period is set aside – The appeal is partly allowed - Whether extended period of limitation can be invoked in VAT incentive cases – HELD - The legal position regarding inclusion of VAT incentives in assessable value was unsettled prior to Supreme Court judgment dated 28.02.2014 in Super Synotex case. Various Tribunal decisions held that VAT concessions were not includible in assessable value. Appellant cannot be faulted for not including retained VAT when prevailing Tribunal decisions supported their position. There was no suppression of facts as appellant had not concealed any information from department. The legal controversy existed and was finally resolved by Supreme Court. In such circumstances, extended period cannot be invoked as there was no deliberate suppression with intent to evade duty – The extended period of limitation cannot be invoked; demand for extended period is set aside.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST changes in July '25
By Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?