Page 209 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] WONDER CEMENT LTD. v. CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, UDAIPUR 95

18. Considering our findings above on the absence of evidence of non-
compliance on the part of the appellant who had furnished claims of compliance,
we hold that the confiscation of goods, imposition of penalty and recovery of
duty is without authority of law. Appeal is allowed.
(Pronounced in Court on 14-8-2018)
_______
2020 (372) E.L.T. 95 (Tri. - Del.)

IN THE CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
[COURT NO. II]
S/Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (J) and C.L. Mahar, Member (T)
WONDER CEMENT LTD.
Versus
CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, UDAIPUR
Final Order No. 50401/2019, dated 6-2-2019 in Appeal No. E/52846/2018-DB
1
Valuation (Central Excise) - VAT subsidy received by appellant under
Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme in Form 37B for disbursement of
subsidy but it was utilized for payment of sales tax, whether the said amount
can be included in transaction value - By following the decision given in
favour of appellant in Shree Cement Ltd. [2019 (366) E.L.T. 900 (Tri.-Del.)] -
Impugned order set aside. [paras 1, 3, 4]
Appeal allowed
CASE CITED
Shree Cement Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2019 (366) E.L.T. 900 (Tribunal) — Followed .............. [Paras 3, 4]
REPRESENTED BY : Ms. Rinki Arora, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri H.C. Saini, DR, for the Respondent.
[Order per : Anil Choudhary, Member (J)]. - The issue involved in this
case is whether the subsidy received by the appellant from Rajasthan Govern-
ment under its ‘Industrial proportion scheme’ whereby ‘Form 37B’ was issued to
2
the appellant for disbursement of subsidy, which they have utilised for payment
of sales tax, as permitted by the Government of Rajasthan. Whether such amount
utilised by the appellant through Form 37B, whether the same can be added to
the transaction value for the purpose of levy of excise duty.
2. Heard the parties.
3. The said issue has already been decided in favour of the appellant-
assessee in the case of Shree Cement Ltd. v. CCE, Alwar - 2018-TIOL-748-CESTAT-
DEL = 2019 (366) E.L.T. 900 (Tri.-Del.).
4. By following our earlier order (supra), we set aside the impugned
order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
_______
________________________________________________________________________
1 In appeal against this order, notice was issued by Supreme Court in 2020 (372) E.L.T. A23
(S.C.).
2 Reference seems to “Investment Promotion Scheme” : Editor.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  257