Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Ttk - Lig Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs on 24 March, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(111)ELT52(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER V.K. Ashtana, Member (T)
1. To hear this appeal, the appellants are required to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 79,950/-.
2. Heard Shri I. Arokiya Swamy, learned Consultant for the appellants and Shri S. Sankaravadivelu, learned DR for the Revenue.
3. The learned Consultant submits that since the issue is a covered one vide Tribunal's Final Order No. 2547/98, dated 8-12-1998, therefore, the appeals themselves may be decided.
2. Since the issue is a covered one, we take up the appeals themselves by granting waiver of pre-deposit of the amount.
3. The learned Consultant submitted that the issue is regarding levy of cess or otherwise on rubber which is imported. He submitted that the said cess is leviable by virtue of Section 12 of the Rubber Act and as per the clarifications issued by both the Ministry of Commerce and the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, letter dated 22-7-1997, enclosing copy of the letter of the former, it was clarified that under the said section cess is liable on rubber produced in India and not rubber imported. He submits that in the instant case, two Bills of Entry were filed on 4-4-1996 and 2-2-1996 and therefore, cess is not leviable in the case of rubber imported by them.
4. The learned DR submits that the Ministry's circular cited by the learned Consultant has been withdrawn with immediate effect on 8-10-1998. He further submits vide another Circular dated 2-9-1997, the Board has clarified that since cess is collected as duty of excise, additional duty of customs equivalent to such cess is also leviable on the imported goods.
5. We have considered the rival submissions and records of the case. We find that this issue is already covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of MM. Rubber Co. Ltd v. CC vide Final Order No. 2547/98, dated 8-12-1998 wherein it was held that cess would not be applicable to the imported rubber. We also find that since the import of the goods was vide B/E dated 2-2-1996 and 4-4-1996 and the Ministry of Finance circular withdrawing their earlier circular dated 22-7-1997 was issued on 8-10-1998, therefore, the effect of that circular would not be applicable to the goods imported almost two and half years earlier. Therefore, following the ratio of the final order dated 8-12-1998 noted above, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential relief if any as per law.