Facts - Petition filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the letter issued by AC of GST and CEX directing respondents to enable the petitioner to avail and utilize the credit pertaining to Education Cess, Secondary and Higher Education Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess - Request to carry forward and utilize the credit was rejected vide impugned order dated 09.02.2018 on the ground that credit could be set-off only against specific duties and taxes enumerated in the Explanation to Section 140(1) of the CGST Act r/w rule 117 of the CGST Rules; that since the explanation does not cover cesses such as EC, SHE Cess and KKC, the same could not be carried forward. Held: Issue can be clinched in favour of the petitioners for two reasons - impugned order proceeds on the basis that the petitioner has no entitlement to claim set off of credit and thus denies it - however, such credit continues to be available till such time it is expressly stated to have lapsed - lapsing of credit is not a concept unknown to the respondent Revenue and there are multiple instances where the Board/Government provides for specified credits to lapse mentioning the exact point in time when the lapsing would commence and/or stipulating other conditions in this regard - in the present case, there is no notification/circular/instruction that has expressly provided that the credit accumulated would lapse - not only this, the credit has been carried forward manually and reflected in the returns from time to time and such accumulated credits stare the Revenue in the face - having permitted the assessee to carry forward the credit, the authorities cannot now take a stand that such credit is unavailable for use the impugned action of the assessing authority in rejecting the claim has, however, the consequence of insertion of a Rule/Regulation to this effect, which is impermissible - A fiscal statute has to be read and understood as seen - the interpretation should be on the basis of what is apparent, apart from being strict - if one were to apply these propositions to the case on hand, the provisions of section 140(1) provide for transfer of all credits and levies, barring those set out in the proviso - There are only three conditions/embargoes that bar the transfer of accumulated credit - language of section 140(1) and (8) both make it clear that an assessee is entitled to transition of "the amount of CENVAT credit carried forward in the return relating to the period ending with the date preceding the appointed date" and this, in the present case, includes accumulated credit of EC, SHEC and KKC - Revenue has not made out any bar for the transitioning of EC, SHEC and KKC into the GST regime and the petitioner satisfies all conditions, both under sub-section (1) and (8) of section 140 - embargo placed by rule 3(7)(b) of CCR is long gone with the introduction of GST and certainly the powers-that-be are conscious of these factors in drafting the new legislation and the specific provision s.140 - At the risk of repetition, accumulated credit cannot be said to have been wiped out unless there is a specific order under which it lapses - section 28 of the CGST Amendment Act, 2018 proposes the amendment and significantly, explanation (3) clarifies that the expression 'eligible duties and taxes' excludes any cess not specified in Explanation (1) or (2) has not been notified - In view of the above, impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed.