9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. The respondent is represented by learned SDR, who reiterates the findings and observations of the lower appellate authority and also relies on the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in TTK-Lig Ltd. v. CC, Chennai/New Delhi, 2006 (193) E.L.T. 169 (Tri.-LB), wherein the referred issue was answered as under :- "Additional duty of Customs was leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under Section 12 of the Rubber Act read with Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act was not leviable on imported rubber. The above civil appeal filed against the said order was not pressed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai before the Apex Court and, accordingly, that appeal was dismissed. This would mean that the department has accepted the position that no Cess under Section 12 of the Rubber ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms Tariff Act. Hence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded the matter to us for considering the question whether the refund claim of M/s. M.M. Rubber Company is hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's order did not discuss the substantive issue in so many words. But, by remanding the case to the Tribunal for considering the refund claim of the assessee, their lordships were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no liability to pay any duty of the above kind in respect of the rubber imported by them, their refund claim requires to be examined in further detail. For this purpose, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remand the case to the original authority which shall examine the question whether the claim was filed in time as also whether it was hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. The pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
