9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent ORDER The appeal is against order dt. 24.3.2009 of Commissioner (Appeals), Trichy. 2. The ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed their appeal for non-compliance of predeposit in terms of Section 129E of Customs Act, 1962. The first appellate authority ordered for predeposit of Rs. 32 lakhs which is more than 50% of the adjudicated duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. After the issue of final anti-dumping duty notification dt. 24.7.2007, the Revenue entertained a view that anti-dumping duty based on final notification is liable to be paid by the appellant in respect of all consignments imported by them during the operation of provisional anti-dumping duty notification. Accordingly, the original authority confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 63,52,202/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CC Bangalore Vs G.M. Exports - 2015 (324) ELT 209 (SC) and the applicability of Rule 21 of Anti-dumping Rules,1995. We direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to examine all the aspects afresh including the applicability of the Apex Court order relied on by the appellant as well as provisions of Rule 21 of Anti-Dumping Rules1995. Adequate oppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
