2023 (6) TMI 911

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....an be debited through MEIS/SEIS scrips in view of clarification issued vide Board's Circular No.02/2020-Cus. dated 10.01.2020? 3. The facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are stated in brief as follows. The appellant is engaged in manufacture of polyester filament yarn and for the purpose of manufacturing they import MEG and other trading items. In respect of the Bills of Entry filed they discharged the basic customs duty (BCD), Social Welfare Surcharge (SWS), Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess through duty credit scrips issued under the Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS) in terms of notification No. 24/2015-Cus. dated 8.4.2015. During the period December, 2017 to October, 2019 they debited MEIS scri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing upon the Board's Circular (surpa) but for Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess it has been held that these are not covered by the aforesaid clarification and have to be paid in cash only, whereas according to learned counsel the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras on identical issue in the matter of KTV Health Food Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr. of Cus. (Preventive), Tiruchirapalli; 2022 (381) ELT 66 (Mad.) while extending the benefit of the Board's clarification dated 10.1.2020 (supra) has held that the benefit of the Board's circular cannot be denied to the importer on the ground that Education Cess is different component from BCD. I have also gone through the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble High Court and the relevant ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... higher and secondary education cess being a different component cannot be treated as customs duty or additional customs duty and therefore, the benefit conferred under Clause 11 of the said circular cannot be made available to the petitioner. The said view taken by the respondent/Customs Department, in the considered opinion of this Court, in view of the aforestated legal position, is untenable and unacceptable.  27. The quoting of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Unicorn Industries case is a wrong fitment of the citation, as the issue decided in the said case, in fact the principle enunciated in that case if it is culled out, certainly would support the case of the petitioner and not the respondent. Therefore, this Court has ....