9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 1524 - AT - CustomsDemand of Countervailing Duty - assessment of Bill of Entry objected - Held that - This is an admitted and acknowledged fact that the issue involved herein is identical to the said case which is still pending adjudication before the Hon ble Supreme Court, on account of an appeal filed against the order of Hon ble Court at Chennai in the case of Prashray Oversas Pvt Ltd. 2017 (9) TMI 953 - SUPREME COURT - Since the matter is pending consideration before the Hon ble Apex Court, the present appeal shall not be decided on merits - appeal dismissed.
Issues:
Appeal against confirmation of demand of countervailing duty on Bill of Entry, applicability of notification No. 30/2004, reliance on previous judgments, pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi challenged the confirmation of a demand for countervailing duty on a specific Bill of Entry, dated 29.11.2016. The appellant contended that the issue was sub-judiced before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a related case. The appellant sought the disposal of the present appeal based on a judgment from a previous case. However, the Revenue argued that the benefit of notification No. 30/2004, which was relied upon by the appellant, was not applicable due to its amendment under Notification No. 37/2015. The Revenue also referenced a judgment from the Hon'ble High Court of Madras that denied the benefit of Section 30/2004 to the appellant. Upon hearing both parties and examining the records and case laws presented, the Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble High Court at Madras had already rejected the benefit of Section 30/2004 to the appellant. The Tribunal acknowledged that the issue at hand was identical to a case pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, involving an appeal against the High Court's decision in the Prashray Overseas Pvt. Ltd. case. Given the pending adjudication before the apex court, the Tribunal decided not to rule on the merits of the present appeal. Instead, the Tribunal granted both parties the liberty to return after the final verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Consequently, the Tribunal disposed of the current appeal with this liberty provided to the parties.
|
