2007 (1) TMI 76 - AT - Customs

Rubber cess - Appellant demand for refund claim of cess already paid on the imported rubber u/s 3 of the CTA which is not leviable - Matter remanded to examine whether claim filed in time as also whether it hit by the bar of unjust enrichment

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the levy of additional duty of Customs on imported rubber under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
2. Consideration of refund claim for Cess paid on imported rubber under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act.
3. Examination of whether the refund claim is barred by unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the interpretation of the levy of additional duty of Customs on imported rubber under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Tribunal noted the findings of the Larger Bench decision in TTK-Lig Ltd. v. CC, Chennai/New Delhi, which held that the duty of excise levied as cess under Section 12 of the Rubber Act, 1947 on rubber produced in India is applicable to imported rubber. However, the Tribunal considered the Supreme Court's order in Civil Appeal No. D19381 of 2002, which dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, indicating that no Cess under Section 12 of the Rubber Act is leviable as Additional Duty of Customs under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act for imported rubber.

2. The judgment addressed the refund claim for Cess paid on imported rubber under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. The Tribunal found that the party claiming the refund had no liability to pay the duty in question. The appellate authority had earlier rejected the refund claim, assuming the party was liable to pay the duty. The Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and remanded the case to the original authority for further examination of the refund claim, including the aspects of timeliness and unjust enrichment, providing the party with a reasonable opportunity to present their case.

3. The judgment also considered whether the refund claim was barred by unjust enrichment. The Tribunal emphasized that since it had determined that the party had no liability to pay the duty, the refund claim needed detailed examination regarding timeliness and unjust enrichment. The case was remanded to the original authority for a thorough review of the refund claim, ensuring the party's right to be heard during the process.

In conclusion, the judgment allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the original authority for a detailed examination of the refund claim for Cess paid on imported rubber under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, considering the aspects of timeliness and unjust enrichment, as per the findings and observations made in the legal proceedings.