TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) (Oral)]. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we find that the appeal itself merits summary disposal. Accordingly, after dispensing with predeposit, we proceed to deal with the appeal. The original authority had, in adjudication of a show cause notice dated 25-4-03 (read with corrigendum dated 5-4-04), passed an order demanding anti-dumping duty of Rs. 42,91,239/- from the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of show cause notice, did not state any reason as to why it was not possible for it to pass the order within six months prescribed under Section 28(2A) ibid. Accordingly, learned Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the case to the lower authority with a direction to revisit the issue on the limited point of why it was not possible to determine the duty in the specified period as per Section 28(2A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e lower appellate authority, we find that the order of adjudication was annulled. However, the effect of the above order came to be modified by the Commissioner (Appeals) by issuing a corrigendum which reads thus : Also in page 8, 2nd para in the 1st line, after the word annulled the following may be inserted to that extent of Corrigendum, dated 5-4-2004 2. We have heard the rival submiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ul consideration to the submissions, we find that the judicial intent behind the impugned order is clearly discernible from para 10 and 11 read together. It was not the purpose of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the demand of duty of Rs. 38,49,776/- vide para 10 of her order. The purpose was to direct the original authority to state valid reason for not having passed the order of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|