9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iraja Pandian, J] - This appeal is filed by the Department against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai made in Final Order No.789/2007 dated 27.6.2007 along with Stay Order No.645/2007. 2. The appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal came to be filed against the demand of anti-dumping duty on Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL, for short) imported by the respondent herein and cleared under flour Bills of Entry during November-December 2002. The CFLs are of Chinese origin and are governed by two notifications viz., Notification No.128/2001 dated 21.12.2001 (Provisional) and Notification NO.138/2002 dated 10.12.2002 (final). The goods imported by the respondent were prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een complied with. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal for failure of pre-deposit. Once again that order has been carried to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order set aside the order of the Commissioner with a direction to the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the importer's appeal on merits without insisting on any pre-deposit. The said order has been passed by the Tribunal following its earlier order dated 4.1.2007 made in Final Order No.14-20/2007. 3. Mr. Udayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has very strenuously contended that in this case the revenue involved is very huge. Each case has to be adjudicated depending upon the facts of the particular case. Though power has been vested with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .4.1.07 ibid, is yet to be challenged by the Revenue. In the circumstances, the respondent cannot be heard to say that the view taken by this Bench in final order dated 4.1.07 is legally incorrect. On the question whether the decision of the Delhi Bench must prevail over the decision of the Bangalore Bench, we reserved our view and ld. SDR's submission on the point will be considered at final hearing stage." 6. Thus, the Tribunal has found a strong prima facie case in favour of the importer against the levy of anti-dumping duty retrospectively. As a matter of fact the Tribunal relied on its earlier Final Order dated 4.1.2007 on the very same issue which is the requirement of judicial consistency. It is not established before us that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
