9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... challenging the notification was clearly maintainable before the CEGAT - SLP (C) 9423-9432 of 2000 with 20463 of 2000 & oth - --- - Dated:- 24-3-2008 - BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT P. SATHASIVAM AFTAB ALAM JUDGMENT: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Since the Special Leave Petitions, Writ Petitions, Civil Appeal and the Transfer Applications involve identical issues, they are taken up t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Authority but also against the Customs Notification dated 27 th October, 1998 whereby anti-dumping duty was imposed. The Bench noted that this aspect was not apparently brought to the notice of the Bench when it passed the order dated 11 th May, 2000, and the order of CEGAT itself does not refer to the Customs Notification dated 27 th October, 1998 which was impugned in the present Special ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d notice. In view of this apparent conflict, submits the learned Additional Solicitor General, the cases may be placed before a three Judge Bench. Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel and the other senior counsel also adopted the same submission. Mr. P. Chidambram, the learned seniors counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a writ petition is already filed therefore this questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government. For this reason, we decline to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and dismiss the special leave petitions." The matter was accordingly referred to a three-Judge Bench and that is how the matter is posted before us. 4. The order dated 24.8.2000 clarified the position as to why notice was issued notwithstanding the earlier dismissal of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he dismissal of the SLPs. by order dated 11.5.2000 was on account of the fact that the relevant aspects were not brought to the notice of the Bench. 5. That being so, we are of the view that the appeals before the CEGAT were clearly maintainable when challenge was to the determination made is clear from the issuance of the Notification dated 27 th October, 1998. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
