TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 399
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed refund claims which were rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection of the refund claims, they filed appeals before the learned Commissioner(Appeals) who in turn, upheld the rejection of refund claims. Hence, the present appeals. 3.1. The learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had, inter alia, engaged in the manufacture, distribution and sale of rubber related products such as tyres, tubes, flaps, tread rubber and conveyor belts and imports natural rubber for the same. Cess on rubber was introduced vide Section 12 of the Rubber Act, 1947 wherein it is mentioned that a duty of excise would be levied on all rubber products in India which is to be paid to the Rubber Board by the manufacturer or the land owner on whose land rubber is produced; therefore, no rubber cess is applicable in the present case as the rubber is not produced in India rather purchased from outside India. He has submitted that Section 12 of the Rubber Act, 1947 can be invoked only for rubber produced in India and not in case of the imported rubber in view of the clarification issued by the Ministry vide Instructions F.No.572/6/97-C dated 22.07.1997. He has referred various judgment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....975 (CVD) during the relevant period. 7. The said issue is no more res integra. This Tribunal in the appellant's own case referring to the earlier judgments and Larger Bench judgment in the case of TTK - LIG Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2006(193) ELT 169 (Tri. LB)] on the said issue, held as follows:- 13. We have perused the judgment in the above Larger Bench decision. As rightly pointed out by ld. AR, in this judgment authored by then Hon'ble President, Shri Justice Abichandani, the difference in the issue in the cases decided by the Tribunal in M.M. Rubber/Vikrant Tyres as well as in the cases referred for decision of Larger Bench has been well discussed and analysed. The Larger Bench held that additional duty of customs is leviable under Section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 on imported rubber equal to the duty of excise levied as cess under Section 12 of Rubber Act, 1947, holding the issue in favour of Revenue. 14. Thus we find that the issue posing for consideration in the case before us stands covered by the judgment of the Larger Bench in T.T.K. - LIG Ltd. (supra) 15. Argument of ld. Counsel for the appellant that the very same issue was considered in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....td. 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 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 Act is leviable as Additional Duty of Customs under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act in respect of rubber imported into India. We also take judicial notice of the Apex Court's order in Civil Appeal Nos. 1970-1981/2005 in the case of M.M. Rubber Co. v. Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Chennai [2005 (186) E.L.T. A161 (S.C.)]. The said appeals were filed against an order of this Bench holding that cess leviable under Section 12 of the Rubber Act was not leviable by the department as Additional Duty of Customs under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act in respect of imported 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 dep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i) (Vikrant Tyres Ltd. v. Commissioner). While dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court passed the following order : "There is an inordinate delay of 357 days in filing the appeal for which no sufficient cause has been shown. The application for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the civil appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay." The Appellate Tribunal vide its impugned order had held that the Apex Court in the cases of Vikrant Tyres Ltd. [2003 (157) E.L.T. A134 (S.C.)] and M.M. Rubber Co. [2005 (186) E.L.T. A161 (S.C.)] had held that cess under Section 12 of Rubber Act, 1947 read with Section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was not leviable on imported rubber, therefore the assessee had no liability to pay any duty of the above kind in respect of rubber imported by them however, their refund claim was required to be examined in further details. The Tribunal, therefore, remanded the matter to the original authority to determine whether the claim of the assessee was hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. [Commissioner v. Vikrant Tyres Ltd. - 2010 (254) E.L.T. A69 (S.C.)]. 19. The judgment passed by earlier Bench of Chennai in TTK-LIG ....