https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761431 HC held that ADD demand for period 08.12.2014 to 31.08.2015 cannot be sustained as the original ADD notification had lapsed on 07.12.2014 and subsequent notification issued on 05.01.2015 was invalid per SC precedent in Kumho Petrochemicals. Development Commissioner had jurisdiction to issue show cause notices under SEZ Act. Court rejected procedural objections regarding written submissions not being provided to petitioner. On substantive issues regarding applicability of ADD to subject goods, HC found these involved disputed questions of fact requiring detailed evidence examination inappropriate for Article 226 jurisdiction. Petitioner granted leave to file statutory appeal on merits within specified timeline. en-us Wed, 06 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Nov 2024 11:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761431 HC held that ADD demand for period 08.12.2014 to 31.08.2015 cannot be sustained as the original ADD notification had lapsed on 07.12.2014 and subsequent notification issued on 05.01.2015 was invalid per SC precedent in Kumho Petrochemicals. Development Commissioner had jurisdiction to issue show cause notices under SEZ Act. Court rejected procedural objections regarding written submissions not being provided to petitioner. On substantive issues regarding applicability of ADD to subject goods, HC found these involved disputed questions of fact requiring detailed evidence examination inappropriate for Article 226 jurisdiction. Petitioner granted leave to file statutory appeal on merits within specified timeline. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 06 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761431