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>Manufacturers under compound levy scheme liable to pay education cess in addition to fixed rate.</h1> <h3>C.C.E. Jaipur II Versus Shree Charbhuja Industries</h3> C.C.E. Jaipur II Versus Shree Charbhuja Industries - TMI Issues:Whether manufacturers under compound levy scheme are liable to pay education cess in addition to the rate fixed under the notification.Analysis:The appeal was filed by Revenue against the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur, concerning 43 manufacturers of SS Cold Rolled Patta/Patti under Sub Heading No. 7219.90 of the Central Excise Tariff. These manufacturers opted for payment under the compound levy scheme as per notification no. 34/2001 CE dated 28.6.2001. The dispute revolved around whether these manufacturers are obligated to pay education cess in addition to the fixed rate under the notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claims for cess, which the original authority rejected. The Revenue challenged this decision in the present appeal.During the hearing, the ld. AR for Revenue argued that the issue was decided in favor of Revenue by the Tribunal in a previous case. The Tribunal's decision highlighted that the compounded levy scheme was based on Rule 15 of the Central Excise Rules, which specifically refers to duty payable under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This Act pertains to duties specified in the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Tribunal emphasized that education cess levied under the Finance Act is not part of the duty payable under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal clarified that the compounded levy scheme does not discharge the liability for education cess or higher education cess.The Tribunal further explained that the term 'duty' in the compounded levy scheme refers to duties payable under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, which includes duties specified in the Central Excise Tariff Act. As education cess is imposed under separate Finance Acts, it does not fall under the duty payable under the compounded levy scheme. The Tribunal emphasized that the scheme under Rule 15 of the Central Excise Rules applies to duties under Section 3 of the Act and does not grant exemption from duties under other statutes. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in allowing the refund claims for education cess, and the impugned order was set aside.In conclusion, the Tribunal, following the precedent set by a coordinate bench, allowed the appeal filed by Revenue, setting aside the impugned order and ruling that manufacturers under the compound levy scheme are not exempt from paying education cess in addition to the fixed rate under the notification.Judgment:The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by Revenue, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and ruling that manufacturers under the compound levy scheme are liable to pay education cess in addition to the rate fixed under the notification.
TaxTMI 