2007 (3) TMI 429

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....04 dated 31-5-2004 passed by this Bench. We had vide Final Order Nos. 418-429/2004 ibid set aside demands of cess styled as demands of 'additional duty of customs equal to duty of excise' on M/s. M.M. Rubber Co. Ltd. in respect of consignments of natural rubber imported by them. We had therein held that any levy on imported natural rubber could only be made by the competent authority under the Rubber Act, 1947. However, in the said final order, we had overlooked the fact that the party had cleared the goods on payment of the impost and that their claim for refund was also part of the subject matter of the case before us. In the above civil appeals before the Supreme Court the department challenged our order on the substantive question wheth....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hics India Ltd. [2004 (166) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), submitted that, by mere reason of price remaining the same after assessment of goods, the assessee would not be entitled to get over the bar of unjust enrichment. She submitted that the appellants were liable to adduce other reliable evidence to show that they had not passed on the incidence of duty to their customers. 3. Learned counsel pointed out that, as the lower authorities had rejected the refund claim on merits by holding that the appellants were liable to pay cess on the imported natural rubber under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, they had no occasion to examine the question of unjust enrichment. This submission was not contested. 4. However, learned SDR pointed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt order of the apex court, which was passed on 17-2-2003 in Civil Appeal No. D19381 of 2002 in the case of CCE v. Vikrant Tyres Ltd. vide 2003 (157) E.L.T. A134. It is, further, pointed out by the counsel that, in view of the apex court's order dated 17-2-2003 as clarified in its order dated 13-10-2003, the Tribunal's larger bench has returned in a reference made by this Bench, holding that similar demands of duty on imported natural rubber is not sustainable. Counsel has also filed a copy of Final Order No. 880 to 909 dated 28-10-2003 of this Bench in the case of London Rubber Co. India Ltd. and Others v. CC, Chennai, wherein we allowed the assessee's appeal by following the orders of the apex court and the Tribunal's Larger Bench. 2.&....