Effect of Rajasthan Investment Promotion Policy-2003 on Central Excise Duty

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

We have heard the parties. It has been brought to the notice
jointly that due to difference of opinion among the bench, by Interim
Order no. 7-13 dated 22.06.2022, the matter was referred to Hon’ble
President for appropriate orders and/or for appointing the third
member to hear and decide the questions based on the said
difference of opinion. Following questions were framed in the said
Interim Order itself.
(A) Whether in the facts and circumstances, the capital/wage
subsidy in question reduces the selling price of goods, as held by
the Member (Technical).
OR
As held by the Member (Judicial) that the subsidy in question does
not reduce the selling price of the goods. Nor does it amount to
indirect flow from the buyer to the seller.
(B) The amount of subsidy under dispute is an independent
amount of subsidy received from the Government on the basis of
the capital investment and employment generation/wages paid
and thus, is not an additional sales consideration, as held by the
Member (Judicial).
OR
The amount of subsidy under dispute is not an independent
amount received by the appellant. Rather it is computed with
reference to the sales tax paid and thus, is an additional
consideration for sales, as held by the Member (Technical).

(C) The facts in this appeal are similar to the facts in the case of
Super Synotex India Ltd. (supra), as held by the Member
(Technical)
OR
The facts in the present case are difference and hence, ruling of
the Apex Court in the case of Super Synotex India Ltd. (supra) is
not applicable.

(D) Under the facts and circumstances, the appellant have
received VAT subsidy (directly affecting the selling price of the
goods), as held by the Member (Technical)
OR
It is not a case of VAT subsidy, affecting or depressing the selling
price of the goods, as held by the Member (Judicial).
(E) The provisions of Section 9 of Rajasthan VAT Act has not been
considered in the case of Shree Cement Ltd. (supra) leading to
erroneous judgment in the said case, as held by the Member
(Technical)
OR
The provisions of Section 9 of Rajasthan VAT Act 2003 has got no
application in the facts of the present case, as held by the
Member (Judicial).
(F) It is an appropriate case for reference to the ld. Third Member
on the questions framed by the Id. Member (Technical)
OR
There is no case for reference to the Ld. Third Member and the
appeal is fit to be allowed, as held by the Member (Judicial).