2026 (3) TMI 1655

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....11.2014. 2. Heard Shri Karthick Sundaram, ld. Advocate for the Appellant and Smt. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, ld. Assistant Commissioner for the Revenue, we have carefully perused the documents placed on record including various judicial precedents relied upon by both the parties during the course of arguments. 3. It is the case of the Revenue that the Appellant who had filed various Bills of Entry for clearance of imported natural rubber falling under CTH 40012200, was liable for Cess and accordingly, a SCN/Demand notice issued demanding an amount of Rs.46,94,700/- along with applicable interest under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962. After considering the reply, the Original Authority vide Order-in-Original No.19324/2012 dated 27.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed 29..11.2001 by CESTAT Bangalore affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2003 (157) ELT A134 (SC). 6. He would further submit that the decision / order of the Larger Bench in the case of TTK-LIG Ltd. supra referred to/relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) is erroneous since the Larger Bench did not follow the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of London Rubber Co. India Ltd. supra and Vikrant Tyres Ltd. supra. 7. On merits, he would also contend that as per Section 12 of the Rubber Act, 1947 Cess is leviable on the rubber produced in India which is collected by Rubber Board established under the said Act, which means the above levy is contemplated only on the domestically produced rubber and hence, same is not ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to order notice on the Respondent-Commissioner of Customs and hence, he would submit that the order of CESTAT Chennai Bench in MRF case supra cannot be followed. 10. Having heard the rival contentions, the only issue that arises for our consideration is, ' whether levy of Additional Duty of Customs under Section 3 (1) of CTA equivalent to Rubber Cess under Section 12 of the Rubber Act, 1947 on the Appellant is legally sustainable ?'. 11. After hearing both the sides, we find that it is a very strange case, where both the contesting parties submit that the issue is no more res integra as decided by various judicial decisions in their favour. 12. With regard to various decisions / orders reli....