2008 (3) TMI 17 - SC - Central Excise

Though the order of determination under rule 18 has taken place with issuance of notification dated 27-101998 where anti dumping duty on dumped articles have been imposed. Therefore an appeal challenging the notification was clearly maintainable before the CEGAT

Summary

Issues:
Identical issues in Special Leave Petitions, Writ Petitions, Civil Appeal, and Transfer Applications.

Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court considered Special Leave Petitions, Writ Petitions, Civil Appeal, and Transfer Applications involving similar issues for disposal. The Court noted the dismissal of earlier Special Leave Petitions filed against the judgment of the Central Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal. The dismissal was based on the understanding that the orders of the Designated Authority were recommendatory, and the appeal lies against the determination to be made by the Central Government.

2. A two-Judge Bench observed that the challenge before the Appellate Tribunal was not only against the Designated Authority's determination but also against the Customs Notification imposing anti-dumping duty. The Court noted that this crucial aspect was not highlighted earlier, leading to confusion. Due to conflicting orders, the matter was referred to a three-Judge Bench for clarity on the maintainability of the appeals.

3. The conflicting orders highlighted the importance of the Customs Notification dated 27th October, 1998, which was challenged. The Court clarified that the appeal could be maintainable as the determination under the Customs Tariff Rules had taken place with the issuance of the said Notification. The correct position brought out in the order dated 24.8.2000 justified the entertainment of the Special Leave Petitions.

4. The Court emphasized that the appeals before the Appellate Tribunal were maintainable as the challenge was against the determination made, evident from the Customs Notification dated 27th October, 1998. The cases were directed to be placed before a Bench of two Judges for further consideration on merits, based on the clarified legal position.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment addressed the confusion regarding the maintainability of appeals concerning the Designated Authority's determination and the Customs Notification imposing anti-dumping duty. The Court clarified the legal position based on the relevant Customs Tariff Rules and directed the cases to be reviewed by a Bench of two Judges for a detailed examination on merits.