ORDER
Harish Chander, Member (J)
1. The present revenue’s appeal is a transferred matter to be treated as an appeal which was in the nature of review show cause notice. A notice of hearing was sent to the respondents and the respondents vide their telegram have intimated that the matter may, be decided on merits in their absence and in the telegram the respondents have also mentioned that the Review Show Cause Notice issued by the revenue authorities under erstwhile Section 131 of the Customs Act was hit by limitation.
2. Shri J. Gopinath, the learned SDR who has appeared on behalf of the appellants states that the review show cuase notice is dated 9-11-1981 and the same was issued in terms of the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962. Shri Gopinath states that there is no limitation for the issue of review show cause notice under Sub-section (3). The limitation was only under Sub-sections (4) and (5). He further states that in the present matter there is dispute of classification and as such there was no limitation. On merits Shri Gopinath has argued that the respondents have imported rubber bladders and the revenue authorities have assessed the same under Heading 40.05/16 of the CTA with countervailing duty under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The respondents have filed the refund claim and had claimed the assessment under Heading 84.60 and had further agitated that no countervailing duty was leviable. The Assistant Collector had rejected the refund claim. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order the respondents had filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector and the Appellate Collector had accepted the claim of the respondents that the rubber bladders are parts of rubber moulds and further held that the same are classifiable under Heading 84.60. On the issue of countervailing duty he had confirmed the findings of the Assistant Collector. Being not satisfied the revenue authorities had issued the Review Show Cause Notice. Shri Gopinath states that the review show cause notice was issued on the basis of letter dated 27-8-1981 written by Dunlop India Limited and in the said letter Dunlop India Ltd. had accepted that “It is not a hardened rubber. The bladder is placed inside the Bag-o matic tyre curing press and pneumatically inflated to press the green tyre to the sides of the inner mould for obtaining the tread pattern.” Shri Gopinath states that since the Dunlop India Ltd. had accepted it and the present importation is unhardened rubber the classification done by the Assistant Collector under Heading 40.05/16 was correct in law. He has pleaded for the acceptance of the appeal.
3. We have heard Shri J. Gopinath and have gone through the records. The Appellate Collector had passed the order on 2-9-1980 and the letter from Dunlop India Ltd. is dated 27-8-1981 i.e. much after the passing of the appellate order. The respondents in their reply to the show cause notice in sub-para (i) of Para 2 have mentioned that there is denial of principles of natural justice and have also mentioned that the review notice under Section 131(3) is barred by time. First we take the contention of the respondent on the point of limitation. A perusal of Sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) of Section 131 shows that in the respondent’s case Sub-section (3) is applicable and there is no limitation for the issue of review show cause notice. Accordingly we hold that the review show cause notice was issued within time as there is no limitation for the issue of the same.
4. On merits we would like to observe that in the present matter there is denial of principles of natural justice. The revenue’s case is based on the letter of Dunlop India Ltd. which is dated 27-8-1981. The respondents did not get the opportunity of cross-examination and the letter is much after the appellate order. We feel that there is complete denial of principles of natural justice. Accordingly we do not find any reason in disturbing the order passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs. With these observations we reject the appeal. Since we are rejecting the appeal on the principles of natural justice we are not going into the merits of the case.
5. Pronounced in open court.