TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te for the Respondent -assessee ORDER Per Ashok K. Arya The Revenue has filed this appeal against the order dated 28.02.2014 of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), whereunder the demand of rubber cess amounting to ₹ 7,42,408/- has been dropped against the respondent namely M/s Malhotra Rubber Limited. 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss was collected under the Rubber Act, 1947 and though first credited to the Consolidated Fund of India and it was then paid to the Rubber Board for being utilised for the purposes of the Rubber Act, 1947. Thus, it was a tax collected for the allocated purpose i.e. for the benefit of rubber industry 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 l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e wholly exempt if natural rubber is imported under the Advance Authorisation Scheme (AA Scheme), subject to fulfilment of the conditions of the exemption notification. It may be pointed out at this stage that there is no dispute regarding 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
