2016 (12) TMI 515

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. The brief facts of the case are that: (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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....try to which the taxpayer belonged and benefited by such allocation. (iii) The levy of cess, therefore, 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng the Respondent having fulfilled all the conditions of Notification No. 96/2009-Cus. in the present case. 5. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of both the 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 appella....