2017 (6) TMI 1093 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - excess amount of education cess paid by them on DTA clearances during the period from June 2006 to September 2007 - Held that - The issue which is involved in the present appeal has been settled by the Larger Bench by this Tribunal in the case of Kumar Arch Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE 2013 (4) TMI 482 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that the education cess and S&H cess would be chargeable only once under Section 93 of Finance Act, 2004 and Section 138 of Finance Act, 2007 on the sum of basic customs duty and Additional customs duty - Since in this case also, the learned Commissioner (A) has held that assessee is not liable to pay Education Cess third time, the issue is squarely covered in favor of the assessee by Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Appeal filed by Revenue against the order allowing refund of education cess to the assessee.
- Interpretation of the legality of charging Education Cess multiple times.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner (A) allowing the refund of education cess to the assessee. The initial refund claim was made by the assessee for the excess amount of education cess paid on DTA clearances. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner initially, but subsequent appeals led to the Commissioner (A) directing the refund of the excess paid education cess. The Revenue challenged this decision on the grounds of legality.

2. The main issue in this case revolved around the interpretation of the legality of charging Education Cess multiple times. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision by the Larger Bench in the case of Kumar Arch Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, where it was held that Education Cess is a surcharge on existing levies and cannot be charged on Education Cess itself. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (A) in this case, stating that the assessee was not liable to pay Education Cess for the third time, as held by the Commissioner (A) based on the Larger Bench decision. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (A) to allow the refund of education cess to the assessee based on the interpretation of the legality of charging Education Cess multiple times as per the precedent set by the Larger Bench decision.