9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 107 - AT - CustomsAnti-dumping duty levied in terms of Notification No. 52/2010-Cus. dated 19.4.2010 - Tetrafluoroethane or R-134a - Held that - As in SRF Ltd. Vs. Refex Refrigerants Ltd. 2011 (1) TMI 713 - MADRAS HIGH COURT the Notification No. 52/2010-Cus has been set aside also confirmed in 2013 (6) TMI 233 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Thus set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the original authority to decide the case afresh after considering the judgment of SRF Ltd. (supra) as it was not placed before the Commissioner (Appeals).
Issues:
1. Levy of anti-dumping duty on imported goods based on Notification No. 52/2010-Cus. 2. Validity of the anti-dumping duty imposed. 3. Remand of the matter based on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court. The judgment pertains to the imposition of anti-dumping duty on Tetra Fluro Ethane imported under Bill of Entry No. 484125 dated 19.4.2010. The appellant cleared the goods on the same day by paying duty, but later a demand notice for anti-dumping duty of Rs.10,03,403/- was issued under Notification No. 52/2010-Cus. The adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty. The appellant argued citing the case of SRF Ltd. Vs. Refex Refrigerants Ltd. where the Hon'ble Madras High Court set aside the same Notification, a decision upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned AR supported the Commissioner (Appeals) findings. The Tribunal noted the High Court's decision and remanded the matter to the original authority for fresh examination considering the High Court's judgment. The Tribunal observed that the High Court had set aside Notification No. 52/2010-Cus., a fact not presented before the Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand the case for a comprehensive review by the original authority in light of the High Court's judgment in the SRF Ltd. case. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the original authority to re-examine the case following the law and the High Court's decision. The Tribunal disposed of the miscellaneous application for additional evidence and the stay application. The appeal was allowed for remand to the original authority for fresh adjudication. The decision was dictated and pronounced in open court by the Tribunal.
|
