TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 493
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the appellants imported Carbon Black N 330 falling under Customs Tariff Heading No. 2803 00 10 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The goods were cleared and passed out of custom charge from ICD, Ludhiana. The goods were imported against advance authorization issued in terms of Para 4.5.1.3 of the Foreign Trade Policy. As per the said policy, the goods imported against advance authorization were exempt from whole of custom duty, additional duty, safeguard duty and anti dumping duty leviable under Section 3, 8B and 9A of the Customs Tariff Act. The Department found that the said goods in terms of Notification No. 4/2012-Cus (SG) dt. 05.10.2012 were also leviable to safeguard duty under Section 8C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 at the rate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It was also the contention that the present demand has been made against the Principle of estoppels. Ld. Advocate further submitted that the calculation for demand of the safeguard duty is illogical. It was also submitted that the notification was for a limited period from October, 2012 to December, 2013 and the demand was confirmed only on 27.03.2014 after expiry of the said Notification and the demand was thus illegal. In this regard, reliance was placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment of Union of India Vs. Kumho Petrochemicals Company Ltd. 2017 (351) ELT 65 (SC). 5. Ld. AR for the Revenue submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Balkrishna Industries Ltd. Vs. UO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Court held that inasmuch as there is no exemption from safeguard duty leviable under Section 8C, which is imposed on the goods imported from China, the importer has to pay safeguard duty, in terms of Section 8C. 8. On the issue of whether, in the event of above said judgment being stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reliance can be placed on it for deciding the issue, we find that as rightly pointed out by the Ld. AR, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in a similar situation wherein the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court on the issue of Rule 8(A) had been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held as below:- "7. The revenue has argued that the Supreme Court has entertained a Special Leave petition against the judgment of the Gujarat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... so long as it exists, it cannot be said that the appeal which has been disposed of by the said order has not been disposed of and is still pending. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the passing of the interim order dated February 21, 1991 by the Delhi High Court staying the operation of the order of the appellate authority dated January 7, 1991 does not have the effect of reviving the appal which had been dismissed by the appellate authority by its order dated January 7, 1991 and it cannot be said that after February 21, 1991, the appeal stood revived and was pending before the appellate authority." 8. It is apparent, therefore, that an order keeping in abeyance the judgment of a lower court or authority does not deface the un....