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>Court upholds Commissioner's decision on Cenvat credit entitlement for Education cess.</h1> <h3>C.C.E., & S.T. -Ludhiana Versus Khanna Paper Mills Ltd.</h3> C.C.E., & S.T. -Ludhiana Versus Khanna Paper Mills Ltd. - 2015 (326) E.L.T. 167 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Entitlement to Cenvat credit of Education cess and Secondary & Higher Education cess when inputs are supplied by 100% EOU under Notification No. 23/2003-CE dated 31.3.2003.Analysis:Issue 1: Entitlement to Cenvat CreditThe appeal and cross objections were disposed together, focusing on whether the respondents could avail Cenvat credit of Education cess and Secondary & Higher Education cess when purchasing inputs from a 100% EOU under Notification No. 23/2003-CE. The Respondents, engaged in paper manufacturing, were directed to deposit excess Cenvat credit availed, leading to a dispute. The Revenue alleged an excess Cenvat credit of Rs. 37,45,509 was availed due to miscalculation, contending that Education Cess and SHE Cess paid as part of Additional Customs duty were not admissible for Cenvat credit. The period in dispute was before the insertion of the second proviso to Rule 3(7)(a). The Revenue challenged the Commissioner (Appeals) order favoring the Respondents.Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 3(7)(a)The Rule restricts Cenvat credit based on the formula provided, allowing credit on Additional Customs duty (CVD) component, which includes excise duty and cess. The Additional duty of customs includes Education Cess and SHE Cess. The judgment referenced relevant provisions and clarified that the Respondents, under Notification No. 23/2003, were entitled to credit on the Additional Customs Duty, inclusive of excise duty and cess. Precedents like Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. case supported this interpretation, emphasizing the legislative intent behind the amendment.Issue 3: Application of PrecedentsThe judgment cited various cases supporting the allowance of Cenvat credit on Education Cess and SHE Cess components forming part of CVD. The Commissioner (Appeals) applied the ratio from previous cases in favor of the assessee. The judgment highlighted the consistency in decisions favoring the assessee's position, even post the amendment inserting the second proviso to Rule 3(7)(a). The amendment aimed to clarify confusion and suppress mischief, supporting the allowance of Cenvat credit on Education Cess and SHE Cess components.ConclusionThe appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision in favor of the Respondents. The judgment also dismissed the Cross Objection filed by the Respondents seeking a refund, as no merit was found in their contention regarding the period in question. The impugned order was sustained, and both the Revenue's appeal and the Respondents' cross objection were dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
