https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234949 Anti-dumping duty demand raised under Notification No. 52/2010-Cus. could not be finally sustained because the lower appellate authority had not considered a subsequent Madras High Court judgment that set aside the same notification. The appropriate course was to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for de novo adjudication, so the original authority could examine the levy afresh in light of the binding High Court ruling and decide the issue according to law. The merits of the demand were therefore left open for fresh determination. en-us Thu, 07 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Jul 2013 09:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234949 Anti-dumping duty demand raised under Notification No. 52/2010-Cus. could not be finally sustained because the lower appellate authority had not considered a subsequent Madras High Court judgment that set aside the same notification. The appropriate course was to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for de novo adjudication, so the original authority could examine the levy afresh in light of the binding High Court ruling and decide the issue according to law. The merits of the demand were therefore left open for fresh determination. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 07 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234949