TTK-LIG LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is no representation for the appellants despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. We are inclined to dispose of this old case after giving careful consideration to the grounds of this appeal and hearing the SDR.

(2.) THE short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether Cess was leviable on "Natural Rubber Latex" imported by the appellants and cleared under Bill of Entry dt. 30.8.95 and recoverable in the form of countervailing duty. The department issued a show -cause notice to the importer for recovery of an amount of Rs. 79,950/ - from them towards Rubber Cess on the above consignment after noting that Cess had been levied only @ 50 paise per kg instead of Re. 1 per kg. In adjudication of this notice, the original authority confirmed the demand against the party under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act read with Section 12 of the Rubber Act. The first appellate authority sustained this demand. Hence the present appeal of the assessee. One of the grounds raised in this appeal reads thus:

(3.) WE have heard the ld.SDR, who has relied on the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the appellants' own case reported as T.T.K. -LIG Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai/New Delhi , wherein it was held that additional duty of customs was leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act on imported rubber to the extent equal to duty of excise levied as Cess under Section 12 of the Rubber Act, 1947 on rubber produced/manufactured in India as on the date of importation. Identical issue was considered by this Bench in the case of Vikrant Tyres Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai , wherein the Larger Bench decision was also considered. In that case, we took 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 and found that the Tribunal's decision against the Revenue on the question of leviability of Cess on imported rubber by way of CVD under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act was upheld by the apex court. We further noted that the apex court's order in the case of M.M. Rubber Co. had not been cited before the Tribunal's Larger Bench. We followed the view taken by the apex court in preference to that taken by the Tribunal's Larger Bench. In the result, it was held, in the case of Vikram Tyres Ltd. that the demand on imported rubber under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act was illegal. Following the same view, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal of the assessee. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)