9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 840 - AT - CustomsDemand of Differential Duty - inclusion of clean energy cess with the Basic Customs Duty for the calculation of Customs Education Cess and Higher Education Cess - HELD THAT - The issue stands covered in the appellant s own case CHEMPLAST SANMAR LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, TIRUCHIRAPALLI 2018 (2) TMI 89 - CESTAT CHENNAI where it was held that it is amply clear that Education Cess levied under Section 81(1) of Finance Act, 2004 on imported goods specified in First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 into India at the rate of 2% on aggregate duty of Customs levied under Section 12 of Customs Act, 1962 as per Section 84 (1) read with Section 84 (2) of Finance Act, 2004 will also levied on Clean Energy Cess as being part of aggregate of Customs. There are no merit in these appeals. Appeals filed by the appellants are dismissed.
Issues:
Calculation of Customs Education Cess and Higher Education Cess on imported coal including clean energy cess component. Analysis: The appellant imported coal and filed Bills of Entry provisionally assessed with clean energy cess included for Customs Education Cess and Higher Education Cess calculation. The adjudicating authority demanded a differential duty based on this inclusion. The appellant contended that as per relevant provisions and notifications, imported coal should not attract these additional cess components. The appellant cited a previous Tribunal order in their favor. The Tribunal analyzed the legal provisions and factual findings, concluding that the clean energy cess on imported goods is part of the aggregate duty of Customs, hence liable for Education Cess and Higher Education Cess. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's arguments, finding no merit in their submissions and dismissing the appeals. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the inclusion of clean energy cess for calculating Customs Education Cess and Higher Education Cess on imported coal, based on the legal provisions and previous rulings. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, affirming the demand for differential duty.
|
