9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3/2000 - Final Order No. 38/2007 - Dated:- 11-1-2007 - [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - There is no representation for the appellants despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai against the Final Order No. 1761/2001 dated 29-11-2001 passed by this Bench in the case of Vikrant Tyres Ltd. v. Commissioner. This Bench in the said case had held that Cess 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 press ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d rubber. Our order, however, had not considered a pending refund claim of the party claiming refund of the amount already collected from them by the department in respect of imported rubber under Section 3 of the Customs 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 unju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he view that the party was liable to pay such duty. Hence there was no occasion for the appellate authority to enter into any enquiry on the aspects of time-bar and unjust enrichment. Now that we have held that the appellants had 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
