TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 420
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as filed this intra-court appeal, challenging the order dated 06.10.2017 passed by the learned Judge allowing the said writ petition in W.P. No. 22770 of 2017. 2. Before the learned single Judge, the first respondent herein has filed two writ petitions namely WP Nos. 22770 and 22771 of 2017. This writ appeal is focused only as against the order dated 06.10.2017 passed in WP No. 22770 of 2017. 3. The first respondent in this writ appeal has filed WP No. 22770 of 2017 praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the show Cause Notice bearing number F.No.S.MISC 01/2017- (SEZ-ACC) dated 15.07.2017 issued by the 1st respondent/appellant herein, quash the same insofar as it seeks to levy Anti-Dumping Du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner/first respondent herein that the validity of the notification dated 16.12.2010 was for a period of five years from 08.12.2009 to 07.12.2014. After expiry of the period stipulated in the notification dated 16.12.2010, the subsequent notification dated 05.01.2015 was issued extending the validity of the earlier notification retrospectively from 16.12.2010 to 07.12.2015. Thereafter, the third notification dated 26.04.2016 was issued post sunset review levying ADD from 26.04.2016 for a period of five years till 25.04.2021. In effect, it was contended that the continuation of the powers to impose ADD is not automatic and the subsequent notification dated 05.01.2015 has not been issued before the expiry of the first notification dated 16.12.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls Company Limited reported in 2017 (351) E.L.T. 65 (SC), held that the legal issue having been settled by the Honourable Supreme Court, the writ petitioner is entitled to succeed. Accordingly, the learned Judge, allowed the writ petition with the following observations:- "The demand of ADD under the show cause notice dated 28.10.2015, for the period from 08.12.2014 to 26.04.2016 i.e., after the lapse of the Notification No.125 of 2010 is not sustainable. The said show cause notice has been issued seeking ADD payable on PCBAs for the period from 14.11.2014 to 31.08.2015. The notification No.125 of 2010 was in vogue till 07.12.2014. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India vs. Kumho Petro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d., vs. Union of India was dissented by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hyundai Motors India Ltd., vs. Union of India reported in (2015) 318 ELT 83 (Mad) by giving a different interpretation for Rule 9A(5) of the Customs Tarrif Act 1975 but it was not considered by the learned Judge. The decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court is on the same subject. While so, the learned Judge ought not to have allowed the writ petition by placing reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court. The notification extending the period of levying Anti Dumping Duty(ADD) is not required to be issued before the expiry of the period of the Notification, but it was not properly appreciated by the learned Judge. He further submitted t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecord, including the typed set of papers. 11. The issue involved in this intra-court appeal is, as to whether the appellant has power to issue a subsequent notification dated 05.01.2015, after the period of validity of the earlier notification dated 16.12.2010 lapsed on the expiry of five years on 07.12.2014. This issue is no longer res integra as it was decided by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Kumho Petrochemicals Company Limited reported in 2017 (351) E.L.T. 65 (SC). In Para No.36 of the decision, it was observed by the Honourable Supreme Court, as under:- "36. As noticed above, the High Court has held that once the earlier notification by which anti-dumping duty was extended by five years, i.e., up to ....