Authority affirms appeals under Section 9C on anti-dumping duty but stays orders challenging notification and amendment validity

HC held that CESTAT has jurisdiction to hear appeals on determination of anti-dumping duty under Section 9C, but the validity/effective date of amendments in the Finance Act, 2023 and the Central Government notification imposing duty raise a distinct dispute. The HC stayed CESTAT interim order No. 5.2025 dated 26.08.2025 insofar as it addresses the notification's validity, while permitting CESTAT to proceed with appeals limited to final findings of the designated authority. Notice issued; parties to file written submissions; matter listed for hearing on 24.11.2025.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether Section 134 of the Finance Act, 2023 (which purports to amend Sections 9, 9A and 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975) was validly brought into force by notification and, if not, whether the amended provision of Section 9C (as retrospectively effective from 1 January 1995) is in force.

2. Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) had jurisdiction to entertain appeals against the Central Government's notification imposing, modifying or not imposing anti-dumping duty in light of the amendments effected by Section 134 of the Finance Act, 2023.

3. Whether the interim order of CESTAT holding that Section 134 was not separately notified and therefore not in force should be stayed, and if so, to what extent CESTAT may proceed with pending appeals while the validity/notification issue is adjudicated.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity/Notification and Commencement of Section 134 of the Finance Act, 2023

Legal framework - The Finance Act, 2023 contains Section 1 (general commencement) and Section 134 (amendments to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, including substitution/omission of certain words in Sections 9, 9A and 9C). Section 134 states that amendments are "with effect from the 1st day of January, 1995." The question of commencement turns on whether Section 134 was brought into force by appropriate notification under Section 1(2) of the Finance Act, 2023 and related principles governing notification/commencement of amending provisions affecting indirect tax statutes.

Precedent treatment - The decision refers to prior treatment of notification/commencement of indirect tax provisions (including parallel situations in GST enactments) where substantive operative provisions were brought into force by separate notifications; the Court also notes earlier disposal of writ petitions raising similar challenges, where petitioners did not press matters because of CESTAT's interim ruling. Those earlier observations are relied on for context; no contrary precedent is overruled.

Interpretation and reasoning - The Court reads Section 1(2) of the Finance Act, 2023 (which begins with "save as otherwise provided in this Act") and counsels' rival contentions. The State's contention is that Section 1(2) and the general notification of the Finance Act suffice to bring Section 134 into force; the opposing contention is that indirect tax related provisions (Sections 128-163) required specific notification analogous to later-notified GST provisions, and no separate notification for Section 134 was issued. Given that CESTAT had held Section 134 was not separately notified, the Court recognises a real controversy as to whether the amendment has actually come into force despite the text of Section 134 specifying retrospective effect. The Court considers that the question whether the Finance Act's general commencement provision automatically operates to notify Section 134 raises legal consequences that require adjudication and cannot be left to an appellate tribunal to determine as an incidental matter in appeals concerned with anti-dumping notifications.

Ratio vs. Obiter - The Court's determination that the notification/commencement question is substantive and requires adjudication is ratio for interim relief; observations about similarity with GST notification practice and past writs disposed of as infructuous are explanatory/contextual (obiter) with respect to the legal question.

Conclusions - There exists a justiciable dispute as to whether Section 134 was validly brought into force; the question cannot be treated as settled by CESTAT's interim order without further judicial examination. The Court issues notice and directs pleadings to resolve the notification/commencement issue.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of CESTAT to Hear Challenges to Government Notifications Imposing Anti-Dumping Duty Post-Amendment

Legal framework - Pre-amendment Section 9C provided that an appeal lies to the Appellate Tribunal against the "order of determination or review" and prescribed time limits and powers of the Tribunal to confirm, modify or annul the order. Post-amendment Section 9C refers to appeals against the "determination or review" and makes corresponding temporal and substantive changes. The core issue is whether the amended text, if in force, restricts or alters CESTAT's jurisdiction to hear appeals against Government notifications imposing anti-dumping duties (as distinct from appeals challenging the designated authority's determinations).

> (Cross-reference: Issue 1 for the antecedent question of whether amendment is in force.)

Precedent treatment - The Tribunal (CESTAT) has interpreted the absence of notification of Section 134 as preserving its jurisdiction to entertain appeals against Government notifications; the Court recognises that such a jurisdictional ruling by CESTAT has broader implications and thus warrants judicial scrutiny.

Interpretation and reasoning - The Court notes that both pre- and post-amendment language of Section 9C, on its face, contemplates CESTAT's jurisdiction in relation to "determination" by the designated authority. The contentious point is whether challenges to a Government notification (a separate act by the Executive) fall within CESTAT's appellate remit after the amendment. Given the pendency of appeals concerning both the designated authority's findings and the Government notification, the Court deems it appropriate to permit CESTAT to continue hearing appeals insofar as they concern the final findings of the designated authority while the higher question of jurisdiction to adjudicate the Government notification remains pending before this Court.

Ratio vs. Obiter - The Court's direction permitting partial continuation of CESTAT hearings (limited to final findings of the designated authority) while staying the Tribunal's interim order on notification is ratio for interlocutory relief. Broader comments on the comparative language pre- and post-amendment are interpretive and may be treated as obiter pending fuller adjudication.

Conclusions - While the question of CESTAT's jurisdiction to hear challenges to a Government notification in light of Section 134 requires determination, CESTAT remains competent to hear appeals solely to the extent they relate to the designated authority's final findings. The jurisdictional question is reserved for adjudication after notice and pleadings.

Issue 3: Appropriateness and Scope of Interim Relief - Stay of CESTAT's Interim Order and Direction for Further Proceedings

Legal framework - The Court has power to grant interim relief including stay of subordinate tribunal orders where necessary to prevent unintended consequences and preserve the subject matter pending adjudication. The appropriateness of such relief depends on the balance of convenience, potential prejudice, and the need to prevent jurisdictional overreach.

Precedent treatment - The Court relies on its supervisory jurisdiction to review the legality of interlocutory orders of tribunals where such orders raise questions of law that may have widespread consequences; the recorded practice of disposing similar writs as infructuous in light of CESTAT's order is noted but does not preclude the present judicial review.

Interpretation and reasoning - The Court observes that CESTAT's interim order holding Section 134 to be not notified could produce unintended and far-reaching consequences if left unexamined, including altering the appellate architecture for anti-dumping matters. To prevent such consequences while the legal issue is adjudicated, the Court finds it appropriate to stay the operative effect of CESTAT's interim order. Simultaneously, to avoid undue delay to merits determination of the designated authority's findings, the Court permits CESTAT to proceed with hearing appeals insofar as they concern the designated authority's final determinations. The Court also prescribes a timetable for counter-affidavit and rejoinder and directs written submissions, thereby structuring the further adjudication of the notification/commencement issue.

Ratio vs. Obiter - The stay of CESTAT's interim order and the carve-out permitting continuation of hearings on the designated authority's findings constitute the operative ratio of the interim disposition. Ancillary references to prior disposed writs and procedural observations are obiter/contextual.

Conclusions - The interim order of CESTAT dated 26th August, 2025 is stayed. CESTAT is, however, permitted to continue hearing appeals only insofar as they relate to the final findings of the designated authority. The Court issues notice on the challenge to the non-notification/commencement of Section 134, directs filing of pleadings on a specified timetable, and lists the matter for further hearing.

Cross-References and Procedural Directions

1. Issues of notification/commencement (Issue 1) are determinative of the jurisdictional question (Issue 2) and therefore are being separately adjudicated; until conclusion, CESTAT's interim ruling that Section 134 was not notified is stayed (Issue 3).

2. Procedural timetable: counter affidavit in 4 weeks; rejoinder in 2 weeks thereafter; written submissions to be filed; matter listed for hearing on a specified date.

3. The stay does not preclude final adjudication by CESTAT of the designated authority's findings and does not decide the substantive merits of the amended provisions; those substantive issues are reserved for final determination after the pleadings and hearing.

---