2007 (3) TMI 566

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the Appellant. Smt. R. Bhagyadevi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. -  This application filed by the appellants is for rectification of what is said to be a mistake apparent from the record, in Final Order No. 1403/2005 dated 4-10-2005 [2006 (198) E.L.T. 406 (T)] passed by this Bench in the captioned appeal, which was against an order passed by the C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sing the provisional assessment notified under Notification No. 128/2001-Cus. dated 21-12-2001 which had imposed ADD provisionally on CFL originating in or exported from Hong Kong. Before the lower appellate authority, the assessee had contended that the goods in question had been imported beyond the validity period of provisional Notification No. 128/2001-Cus. and that the final Notification No. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....id not make the predeposit as directed by this Bench and consequently their appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with Section 129E once again. It is also submitted that, against our final order, the assessee has filed a writ petition in the High Court. 3. Moving the present application learned Senior Advocate submits that an important provision in Notification No. 138/2002-Cus. was over....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rom Hong Kong are concerned, the Notification had no retrospective effect. Learned SDR points out that the goods in question were of Chinese origin. 4. After considering the submissions, we find that the  proviso to para 2 of the Notification was not cited before us and the same also escaped our attention when we dealt with the question whether ADD was leviable on "CFL with choke" imp....