TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal clarifies Cenvat credit rules for 100% EOU inputs</h1> <h3>SV. SALES CORPORATION Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SURAT</h3> SV. SALES CORPORATION Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SURAT - 2012 (284) E.L.T. 244 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues:Interpretation of the formula for availing Cenvat credit based on inputs from a 100% EOU.Analysis:The case involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of the formula for availing Cenvat credit under sub-rule (7) of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, concerning inputs received from a 100% EOU. The formula specified the calculation method for determining the eligibility of Cenvat credit based on the assessable value, Basic Customs Duty (BCD) rate, and Additional Customs Duty (CVD) rate. The disagreement centered around the correct application and calculation of the formula for availing the credit.The Tribunal considered a sample invoice to analyze the rival contentions presented by both the department and the appellant. The tables presented by both parties, labeled as Table A, Table B, and Table C, were examined to determine the correct calculation method and eligibility of Cenvat credit. The tables contained details such as assessable value, BCD, CVD, and various cess amounts paid, forming the basis for the dispute resolution.The Commissioner, in the impugned order, relied on a previous Tribunal decision and concluded that the appellant was not eligible to claim certain Cess amounts related to customs duty. However, the appellant's representative argued that the Cess amounts were incorrectly identified, emphasizing that the appellant had not claimed Cess on customs duty. The representative pointed out discrepancies in the Commissioner's findings and presented a detailed breakdown of the invoice components to support the appellant's claim.Upon review, the Tribunal agreed with the appellant's submission, acknowledging that the Education Cess and SHE Cess amounts were paid on customs duty to calculate the total customs duty payable. The Tribunal clarified that the correct approach for calculating duty payable by a 100% EOU involved determining the customs duty, adding CVD, treating the total as excise duty, and then paying Cess on that amount. Citing a previous decision, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's claim, except for the specific Education Cess amounts, and deemed the remaining calculations admissible as per the sample invoice.In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeals in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the correct interpretation and application of the formula for availing Cenvat credit related to inputs received from a 100% EOU. The judgment highlighted the importance of accurate calculation methods and proper identification of Cess amounts to determine the eligibility of credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
TaxTMI 