9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fic. The appellants are liable to pay duty in terms of Section 8C of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. C/52246-52248/2015 - Final Order No. 62573-62575 /2018 - Dated:- 12-7-2018 - Hon ble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member ( Judicial ) And Hon ble Mr. Devender Singh, Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant : Shri Amar Pratap Singh ( Advocate ) For the Respondent : Shri Atul Handa ( AR ) ORDER Per : Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned orders wherein safeguard duty has been demanded in terms of Section 8C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged and manufacturer of Bicycle tyres/tubes to manuf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Balkrishna Industries Ltd. Vs. UOI 2016 (334) ELT 440 (Bom.) against the appellant but the said order has been stayed by the Hon ble Apex Court. Therefore, the impugned orders are to be set aside. 5. Heard the parties, considering the fact that the said issue has been dealt by this Tribunal in the case of Metro Tyres vide Final order No. 62062-62063/2017 dated 31.10.2017 wherein this Tribunal has relied on the decision of Balkrishna Industries Ltd. (Supra) and has observed as under:- 7. We find that the issue in question is no more res integra and stands settled by the Hon ble Bombay High court in the case of Balkrishna Industries Ltd. Vs. UOI (supra) wherein it has been held that the safeguard duty imposed under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elhi High court, in similar situation wherein the judgment of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court on the issue of Rule 8(A) had been stayed by the Hon ble Supreme Court, held as below:- 7. The revenue has argued that the Supreme Court has entertained a Special Leave petition against the judgment of the Gujarat and Madras High Courts and furthermore, granted a stay in proceedings and that in these circumstances, the law declared in those judgments are no longer applicable. This submission is fallacious because in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church of South India Trust Association (1992) 3 SCC, the Supreme Court has observed as follows: while considering the effect of an interim order staying the operation of the order under chall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eface the underlying basis of the judgment itself, i.e. its reasoning. 9. In view of the above discussion, this court holds that the impugned order and reasoning of the CESTAT does not call for interference and the court is not persuaded to take a view different from those taken by the Gujarat, Allahabad, Punjab and Haryana and Madras High Court, respectively. The appeals are consequently dismissed. Therefore, we hold that the ratio of Balkrishna Industries (Supra) can be applied to the present matter and hence, we hold that the issue at hand is covered by judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court. 7. In view of the above, we hold that the appellants are liable to pay duty in terms of Section 8C of the Customs Tariff Act 1975, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
