2012 (8) TMI 506 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit on inputs received from 100% EOU - appellants availing full Cenvat credit of CVD, Education Cess, Secondary and Higher Education Cess - Revenue contending inadmissibility in view of in view of Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules - Held that - Issue is no more res integra. Availment of credit of Education Cess over goods supplied to them by 100% EOU is correct. See Shreya Pets Pvt.Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad (2008 (9) TMI 351 - CESTAT, BANGLORE), Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited vsl CCE Pune (2008 (1) TMI 147 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) Order set aside - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Whether Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess paid by 100% EOU can be fully credited by the recipient manufacturing unit or limited as per Rule 3(7)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an order regarding the credit of Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess paid by a 100% EOU. The main issue was whether the recipient manufacturing unit could take full credit or if it was limited by a formula in Rule 3(7)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The first appellate authority allowed full credit based on previous Tribunal judgments. The Tribunal examined the matter and upheld the decision, stating that the restriction on credit only applied to basic customs duty and CVD paid by the EOU, not to other duties like Education Cess. The Tribunal referred to relevant rules and previous cases to support its decision.

The Tribunal emphasized that Rule 3(7)(a) specifically applies to basic customs duty and CVD, not Education Cess or other duties. It highlighted that the non-obstante clause in the rule did not override all provisions but only specific ones, as per legal principles. The Tribunal cited a Supreme Court decision to support its interpretation of legislative clauses. Additionally, a previous CESTAT order in a similar case supported the view that the restriction on credit was not applicable to Education Cess. Considering these arguments and precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the recipient manufacturing unit could avail full credit of Education Cess paid by the 100% EOU.

In light of the detailed analysis, legal principles, and previous judgments, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal, stating that the impugned order was correct, legal, and free from any infirmity. Therefore, the appeal was ultimately rejected based on the established legal interpretations and precedents, confirming the recipient manufacturing unit's right to claim full credit for Education Cess paid by the 100% EOU.