DTA Clearances from EOUs - Larger Bench says No Third Time Cess
THE Larger Bench decision is out and the answer is an emphatic NO. Yes, NO third time cess.
A passage from the past -
DDT raised this issue in 07.02.2005.
- 15.03.2010 observed, "FOR setting up an EOU in India, you need two things. One is LOP from the Development Commissioner and the other is a Master's in Mathematics from a reputed University. The former is required for carrying the operations as EOU and the latter for computing the duties payable on DTA clearances and the CENVAT Credit against such clearances"
In the Sarla Polyesters case 2008-TIOL-985-CESTAT-AHM, the CESTAT held that the third time cess is payable.
The High Court () set aside the CESTAT order and remanded the matter to the Tribunal.
On remand, as per the directions of the Bombay High Court, Tribunal served notice to the general public so that all the parties who are interested may also apply as interveners. After hearing the appellants, the interveners and the departmental representative, the CESTAT held, "What is required for the purpose of proviso to Section 3 of Central Excise Act, 1944 is to arrive at aggregate of customs duties and once we take a view that education cess is part of the customs duty and is an enhancement, the question of adding it again does not arise". (Sarla Performance Fibres Ltd v CCE, Vapi - 2010-TIOL-408-CESTAT-AHM)
Ten months after the tribunal order, Board issued a clarification that education cess had to be paid a third time. (Please see - 06.04.2011).
While this confusion was in full swing, the Delhi Bench of the CESTAT did not agree with the decision in Sarla Performance and referred the issue to the Larger Bench - 2011-TIOL-1180-CESTAT-DEL
Revenue also appealed against the Sarla case in the High Court. The Gujarat High Court dismissed the Revenue appeal on the ground that the appeals were not maintainable before the High Court as it was a question of rate of duty and the appeal had to be made to the Supreme Court.
So, the Revenue took the matter to the Supreme Court but the appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay. [See DDT 2047]
All eyes were, therefore, trained on the Larger Bench for its decision. And the decision, as mentioned, is out. The answer is -
++ The intention of the legislature was never to charge education cess on education cess. In fact this is not permissible from very mode of this levy as prescribed in Section 91 of the Finance Act, 2004 and Section 136 of the Finance Act, 2007, as when a new tax is introduced as surcharge on the existing levies, the base on which the new levy as surcharge is to be calculated will include only the existing levies, not the new levy. If the Revenue's stand is accepted, and on the sum of Basic customs duty and Addl. Customs duty, first "cess on imported goods" under Section 94 of Finance Act, 2004 and Section 139 of Finance Act, 2007 is charged as duty of customs and on the aggregate of duties of customs, "cess on excisable goods," under Section 93 of Finance Act, 2004 and Section 138 of Finance Act, 2007 is charged, it would amount to charging education cess on education cess for which there is no sanction in law.
++ Since the DTA clearance of a 100% EOU attract central excise duty and in terms of proviso to Section 3(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944, the measure of the excise duty leviable is aggregate of duties of customs charged on import of like goods into India under Customs Act, 1962 read with Indian Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or any other law for the time being in force, this aggregate of duties of customs on which education cess under Section 93 of Finance Act, 2004 and S&H cess under Section 138 of Finance Act, 2007 is to be charged, would not include education cess and S&H cess under Section 94 of Finance Act, 2004 and Section 139 of Finance Act, 2007.
We will bring you the case tomorrow.
Also see -