https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751393 CESTAT Bangalore dismissed an appeal regarding anti-dumping duty on reflective glass for the period 04/01/2009 to 22/05/2009. The appellant claimed exemption under N/N. 4/2009-Cus dated 06/01/2009, but the Tribunal found that green reflective glass was not mentioned in the exclusion category of this notification, only being included later in amending N/N. 51/2009-Cus dated 22/05/2009. Following SC precedents in Dilip Kumar and Company and State of Gujarat v. Arcelor Mittal cases, the Tribunal held that notifications must be interpreted based on plain language without inferring unstated meanings. The Commissioner (Appeals) order was upheld, confirming anti-dumping duty liability for the intervening period. en-us Mon, 15 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Apr 2024 18:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751393 CESTAT Bangalore dismissed an appeal regarding anti-dumping duty on reflective glass for the period 04/01/2009 to 22/05/2009. The appellant claimed exemption under N/N. 4/2009-Cus dated 06/01/2009, but the Tribunal found that green reflective glass was not mentioned in the exclusion category of this notification, only being included later in amending N/N. 51/2009-Cus dated 22/05/2009. Following SC precedents in Dilip Kumar and Company and State of Gujarat v. Arcelor Mittal cases, the Tribunal held that notifications must be interpreted based on plain language without inferring unstated meanings. The Commissioner (Appeals) order was upheld, confirming anti-dumping duty liability for the intervening period. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 15 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751393