2005 (98) ECC 57 (Tri)

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

West Regional Bench -- Mumbai

Ms. Jyoti Balasundram, Vice President and Shri Moheb Ali M., Member (T)

Overseas Polymers Ltd. & Jagriti Plastics Ltd.

Versus

Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Applications C/Stay-1165/04 & C/Stay-1691/04-Mum in Appeals C/392/04 & C/433/04-Mum

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 68 to 69/2004/45 to 46 (KDL)/-Commr(A)/Raj dated 11/2/2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Rajkot]

Order No. S/1173-1174/WZB/2004/C-I

A/1696-1697/WZB/2004/C-II, dt. 17.11.2004, Certified on 1.12.2004

Anti-dumping duty

Rate -- The rate of Anti-dumping duty in force on the date of importation is applicable in terms of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Waiver of pre-deposit (Anti-dumping duty)

Normal butanol and 2 ethyl hexanol -- Prior to issue of Notification No. 109/2000, importers paid the anti-dumping duty at the rate applicable in terms of Notification No. 6/2000 which was prevalent at the time of import of goods in question -- Therefore, anti-dumping duty at the enhanced rate as per Notification 109/2000 is leviable on goods.

Appeal allowed

PRESENT :

Shri Madhur Baya, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri S.V. Parelkar, JDR for the respondent.

Cases Cited :

1. CC, Chennai v. Suja Rubber Industries, 2002 (49) RLT 326............................... [Para 2]

2. Reppal Traders v. CC, Chennai, (Final Order No. 712 & 713/04 dated 12.8.2004). [Para 2]

Per : Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram

After hearing both sides for some time on the applications for waiver of pre-deposit, we found that it was possible to decide the appeals themselves at this stage and hence proceed to do so with the consent of both sides, after waiving pre-deposit of anti-dumping duty of Rs. 53,66,640 confirmed against M/s. Overseas Polymers Ltd. and Rs. 9,88,222 imposed against M/s. Jagriti Plasters Ltd.

2. The issue in dispute is whether anti-dumping duty at the enhanced rate as per Notification No. 109/2000 is leviable on goods, viz normal butanol and 2-ethyl hexanol imported prior to the issue of notification 109/2000 and warehoused prior to the issue of the notification. We find that the same issue has been considered by the bench in the case of CC, Chennai v. Suja Rubber Industries, 2002 (49) RLT 326 wherein it has been held that the rate of anti-dumping duty in force on the date of importation is applicable in terms of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and in the present case there is no dispute that the importers paid the anti-dumping duty at the rate applicable in terms of Notification No. 6/2000 which was prevalent at the time of import of the goods in question. The same view has been expressed by the Tribunal in Reppal Traders v. CC, Chennai (Final Order Nos. 712 & 713/04 dated 12.8.2004).

3. Following the ratio of the above decisions which are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals.