9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) The respondent, M/s Malhotra Rubber Limited imported consignment of rubber under Advance Authorisation Scheme (AA Scheme) and claimed exemption from all applicable duties of customs under Notification No. 95/2009. (ii) Revenue s stand is that rubber cess is payable on the import of natural rubber notwithstanding the fact that imports were made under Notification No. 26/2009-Cus. (iii) The respondent states that Assistant Secretary (Excise Division) in Rubber Board vide letter dated 06.07.2012 informed that the Rubber Board is not imposing any cess on the imported rubber. (iv) The respondent did not pay rubber cess in case of eight consignments and paid rubber cess in case of ten consignments. (v) in case of cess-unpaid consignme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, did not constitute any additional burden to the taxpayer like duty of excise, which was not for any allocated purpose of development of the industry to which the taxpayer belonged. 4. Ld. Advocate for the appellant based on written submissions interalia submits as under: (i) Rubber cess leviable under Section 12 of the Rubber Act is leviable only on the natural rubber produced in India and not on the imported natural rubber. (ii) This view is supported by the Circular dated 22.07.1997 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, circulating therewith the office memorandum dated 30.06.1997 issued by the Ministry of Commerce. (iii) The above stand has been upheld in a series of decisions given below: (a) MRF Ltd. vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sides and case laws cited, it appears that the matter is squarely covered by CESTAT Chennai decisions in the cases of TTK-LIG Ltd. vs. CC, Chennai -2008 (231) ELT 452 (Tri. Chen.) and in M.M. Rubber vs. CCE 2004 (115) ECR 878 (Tri. Chenn.), where it was specifically held that the demand of cess on imported natural rubber is not sustainable. In this regard, CESTAT Chennai in the case of TTK-LIG (supra) has observed as under: "3. We have heard the ld. SDR, who has relied on the Tribunal s Larger Bench decision in the appellants own case reported as TTK-LIG Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai/ New Delhi, 2006 (193) ELT 169 (Tri. LB), wherein it was held that additional duty of customs was leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tarif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
