9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue raised is whether the goods imported by the respondent are chargeable to special additional duty or not. The adjudicating authority took the view that the goods are chargeable to special additional duty at the rate of 4% vide Notification No. 56/98-Cus., dated 1-8-98. In coming to the above conclusion reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Simplex Cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was increased to 25% from 5% but in the case of SAD it was a new levy which was not in existence at the time of import of the impugned goods. 2. It is contended by the learned DR on behalf of the Revenue that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in taking the view that SAD was not in existence at the time of the relevant import. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in LML Ltd. v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imported prior to 2-6-98 but cleared as such subsequent to the said date. The respondent brought to our notice a decision of the West Regional Bench of the Tribunal in CCE, Ahmedabad v. Ashima Fabrics - 2003 (154) E.L.T. 530. 4. We find merit in the contention raised on behalf of the Revenue. The Trade Notice dated 5-1-99 has no application in the respondent's case as the Trade Notice was applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he goods were cleared from the bonded warehouses the special additional duty, introduced on 1st June, 1998 was already in existence and the assessee was correctly made liable to pay the same." In view of the above, we hold that the Commissioner has erred in reversing the order passed by the adjudicating authority. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and restor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
