TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as bar of limitation is concerned, Notification No. 11/2007, dated 31-1-2007 gave rise to the refund. That shall be the date to calculate the limitation. Accordingly, learned Authority shall look into all the refund applications in accordance with law taking the date as 31-1-2007 to be the date applicable - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of Revenue. - C/667-670/2008 - Final Order Nos. C/A/50801-50804/2014-CU(DB) - Dated:- 6-2-2014 - Shri D.N. Panda, Member (J) and Manmohan Singh, Member (T) Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri V.P. Batra, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER Appeal No. C/667/2008 : Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has granted refund to the respondent holding that Notification No. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposed vide Notification No. 78/2005-Cus., dated 1-9-2005 for the import of subject goods from Korea will be collected at the rate of US $ 38.73 instead of US $ 138.39 per MT and the impugned notification will accordingly amended by the Central Government. The reduction so ordered gave rise to the notification amending rate of duty, as a result of which, respondent filed 9 refund applications before adjudicating authority. 4. While appellant Revenue supported adjudication order, respondent supported the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals). 5. We have carefully examined the provision relating to refund of anti-dumping duty which is mandate of Section 9AA read with Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The provision of Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the hearing before adjudicating authority for passing appropriate orders. 8. Learned DR opposed our proposal above on the ground that this respondent not being before the Tribunal in the anti-dumping case of Apar Industries Ltd. v. Designated Authority reported in 2006 (204) E.L.T. 180 (Tri.-Del.), they are not entitled to refund following the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) holding that a party before a Court is only entitled to the relief given to that party and not a stranger who seeks to get the benefit of the judgment. 9. We agree with the proposal of the Revenue in so far as common law is concerned. But so far as anti-dumping duty is concerned, levy being goods spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
