9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - CESTAT CHENNAI ] after following the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. G.M. Exports [ 2015 (9) TMI 1162 - SUPREME COURT ], has set aside the demand towards Anti-Dumping Duty. There are no justifiable reasons to deviate from the decision since the Revenue has not been able to distinguish the above case, nor has it filed any contrary decisions - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - HON BLE MR. C. J. MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND HON BLE MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri. N. Viswanathan, Advocate for the Appellant Ms. K. Komathi, Authorized Representative (A.R.) for the Respondent ORDER Per : Hon ble Mr. P. Dinesha Brief facts are that the appellants had imported CFL lamps with/without choke from Chi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terim order dated 02.02.2005, directed the appellant to pre-deposit 75% of the demanded amount confirmed by the Original Authority. However, the appellant, without complying with the interim order, chose to submit a petition seeking modification of the interim order, after completion of the compliance period. Thereafter, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide common Orders-in-Appeal C.Cus. No. 224-227, 236, 471/2006 dated 21.03.2006 rejected the appeals for non-compliance of pre-deposit. The above Order-in-Appeal was again appealed before the Tribunal and again, this Tribunal vide Final Order Nos. 14-20/2007 dated 04.01.2007 directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass speaking orders on merit in accordance with law and principles of natural justic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al in the case of M/s. Picasso Overseas v. Commissioner of Cus. (Imports), Chennai in Customs Appeal No. 176 of 2009 and this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 41505 of 2017 dated 04.08.2017 after following the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. G.M. Exports (supra), has set aside the demand towards Anti-Dumping Duty. We see no justifiable reasons to deviate from the decision since the Revenue has not been able to distinguish the above case, nor has it filed any contrary decisions. Accordingly, we are of the view that the impugned demand cannot sustain and hence, the impugned order as also the demand are set aside. 7. The appeal is allowed with consequential benefits, if any, as per law. (Operative part of the order pronounc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
