2025 (1) TMI 1688

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his order rejects the appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 24.09.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner finalizing the provisional assessment of six Bills of Entry and orders for recovery of safeguard duty and corresponding IGST in terms of a Notification dated 30.07.2018. 2. It transpires from the records that Indian Solar Manufacturer Associate, a domestic industry, sought imposition of safeguard duty on the import of cells and modules. On 28.11.2017, proceedings were initiated for imposition of safeguard duty and, ultimately, the Director General (Safeguards) by final findings dated 16.07.2018 recommended levy of safeguard duty. The final findings were assailed in Writ Petition No. 12817 of 2018 before the Orissa H....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rit petition on merits. 6. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the Supreme Court, the Madras High Court decided the writ petition filed by Shapoor Pallonji Infrastructure Capital Co. Private Ltd. and, ultimately, by judgment dated 26.04.2018 disposed of the writ petition. The Madras High Court, after noticing that the interim order passed by the Orissa High Court on 23.07.2018 was in force when the Notification dated 13.08.2018 was issued by the Government for imposition of safeguard duty, held that the said notification would become operative only from 10.09.2018, on which date the Supreme Court stayed the interim order dated 23.07.2018 passed by the Orissa High Court. The observations of the Madras High Court in Shapoor Pallonji Inf....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion became operative and effective. 44. In W.P.No.20478 of 2018, the petitioner has been assessed for safeguard duty vide Bill of Entry dated 2.8.2018. The same was during the subsistence of the prohibitory order passed by the Orissa High Court and before the stay was granted by the Apex Court. The respondents, certainly, could not have assessed the same, as during the said period the notification could not have been issued. The respondents also suggest that the same should not be assessed. Therefore, the order of self-assessment, vide the impugned Bill of Entry No.7474159, dated 2.8.2018, to the extent it seeks to impose safeguard duty pursuant to the notification dated 30.7.2018, is illegal and arbitrary, inasmuch as it was issue....