2005 (8) TMI 162

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i-dumping duty on the Compact Fluorescent Lamps falling under sub-heading 8539.31, imported from Peoples Republic of China/Hong Kong. Therefore the Department issued a show cause notice to the appellants demanding duty of Rs. 2,01,052/- being the anti-dumping duty payable by the appellants on account of the levy of anti-dumping duty. The Original authority confirmed the demand in his order dated 10-6-2003. Subsequently, the Department realised the error in computing anti-dumping duty of Rs. 1,01,99,142/- instead of Rs. 2,10,052/-. Therefore, the Adjudicating authority issued a corrigendum dated 27-8-2003, modifying the confirmed demand to Rs. 1,01,99,142/-. The appellant approached the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) obse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....H 8539.31 and therefore, they were not liable for anti-dumping duty was taken up only at the appellate proceeding stage and therefore should not have been considered by the appellate authority. (iv)    The Commissioner (Appeals) has not dealt with the basic issue in question on the leviability of anti-dumping duty. (v)     As per Notification No. 138/2002, dated 10-12-2002, the anti-dumping duty for imports of CFL is effective for all imports after 21-12-2001. (vi)    The demand is in pursuance to the specific provision in the Notification No. 138/2002 for levy of duty with retrospective effect. (vii)   The Commissioner (Appeals) is a creature of Statute and therefore, the orde....