Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2007 (1) TMI 169

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hikeyan, Member (T) S/Shri K.K. Anand and S. Murugappan, Advocates, for the Appellant. Smt. R. Bhagyadevi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - After examining the records and hearing both sides, we are of the view that the appeals require to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with predeposit, we proceed to deal with the appeals. 2. The appellants had imported CF Lamps without choke from China during August-December, 2002 without payment of anti-dumping duty, which was leviable on the said goods under Notification No. 128/2001-Cus. dated 21-12-2001 read with Notification No. 138/2002-Cus., dated 10-12-2002. The goods were provisionally cleared against bonds execu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s' stay applications in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice and having regard to our observations noted hereinbefore. The authority shall proceed to deal with the assessees' appeals in accordance with law, subject to the results of their stay applications. Needless to say that, in all such proceedings, the parties shall be given reasonable opportunities of being heard." 3. It appears from the records that learned Commissioner (Appeals) heard Counsel for the assessees on 25-1-2006 and subsequently passed an interim order directing them to pre-deposit 75% of the respective amounts of duty within the time stipulated in his behalf. None of the parties deposited any amount. The appellate authority dismissed their appeal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... has reiterated the findings of the appellate Commissioner. 6. As already indicated, the subject imports were made during August - December, 2002. Notification No. 128/2001-Cus., dated 21-12-2001, which imposed provisional anti-dumping duty on CF Lamps of Chinese origin, ceased to be in force on expiry of 6 months i.e., on 20-6-2002. Notification No. 138/2002-Cus. dated 10-12-2002 issued by the Central Government gave retrospective effect to the above impost of anti-dumping duty and accordingly such duty was leviable on the goods during the above period of import. It is the main argument of learned Counsel that Notification No. 138/2002-Cus. giving retrospective effect to the earlier Notification was repugnant to Rule 20 of the Customs .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... with effect from the date of imposition of provisional anti-dumping duty. Learned SDR has also opined that the decision of the Anti-dumping Bench should prevail over that of a two member Bench of the Tribunal. This submission is contested by learned Counsel, who is of the view that the Anti-dumping Bench is co-ordinate to a two-member Bench while dealing with identical issues. On a perusal of the case law cited by learned Counsel, we find that the above decision of the Anti-dumping Bench was not cited before the Bangalore Bench. Basic contentious questions emanate from the above rival arguments, but we are not inclined to enter into an enquiry at this stage inasmuch as we have heard other valid arguments of the Counsel for the present purp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ders were passed long after the date of expiry of the bonds. 6. There seems to be substance in the submission of the learned Counsel that learned Commissioner (Appeals) showed undue haste in directing the assessees to make predeposit. Hearing was held on 25-1-2006. Three days time was allowed for filing final written submissions. Those submissions were filed by the parties and on 2-2-2006, in the case of most of these appellants and on 2-5-2006 in the case of M/s. Picasso Overseas, learned Commissioner (Appeals) passed orders for predeposit. All the parties applied for modification of the interim orders, but no hearing was conducted thereon. It appears from the records that the plea of financial hardships was also not properly appreciat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates