2005 (2) TMI 297

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... - Heard both sides. 2. The Revenue filed this appeal against order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the goods imported by the respondents are not liable to pay anti-dumping duty as per Notification No. 128/2001, dated 21-12-2001. 3. The contention of the Revenue is that as per the Notification the Compact Fluorescent Lamps falling ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t Lamps without Choke. The respondents also relied upon the report of ERTL where the laboratory stated that the imported goods were only parts of Compact Fluorescent Lamps without Choke. 5. We find that in this case the dispute is whether the respondents are liable to pay anti-dumping duty in respect of the goods imported by them. The notification provides that Compact Fluorescent Lamps falling....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is required to make it complete Fluorescent tube. In these circumstances, we find in the decision of Authority for Advance Ruling, the goods was different from the goods imported by the present respondents. 7. In the Bill of Entry respondents declared that the goods in question as glass tubes. The sample taken by the Customs authorities were sent to the ERTL and they informed that they had not....