COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS PUNE vs. M/S BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD

C.A. No.-005644-005645 - 2021Supreme Court2021 INSC 51521 September 2021Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE14 pages
For Petitioner: MUKESH KUMAR MARORIA
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred in not considering the merits of the case and set aside its judgment. The matter was restored to the Tribunal for a fresh determination.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Customs demanded anti-dumping duty on imported 'Lutex -701' and 'Lutex 780', alleging mis-declaration of goods as Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR) subject to such duty. The Tribunal set aside the demand, finding the show cause notice lacked basis and did not challenge the declared classification.

What were the issues?

Whether the Tribunal correctly set aside the demand for anti-dumping duty without examining the merits, and if the show cause notice provided sufficient grounds to challenge the classification of imported goods.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 111(m),Section 28AB,Section 112(a),Section 118(a),Section 9A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos 5644-5645 of 2021 Commissioner of Customs, Pune ... Appellant Versus M/s Ballarpur Industries Ltd. ...Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

1.

Admit.

2.

These appeals by the Commissioner of Customs, Pune arises from a judgment of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (“CESAT” or the “Tribunal”) dated 27 September 2017. The question of law which has been formulated in the appeals is whether the Tribunal erred in setting aside the demand of anti – dumping duty on the product ‘Styrene Butadiene Rubber’ (“SBR”) classified 2

under the heading 4002 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and imported from Korea.

3.

A show cause notice 1 dated 23 May 2006 was issued to the respondent covering five Bills of Entry under which the product ‘Lutex -701’ was imported namely: “(1) Bill of Entry No. 500271 dated 18.03.05; (2) BilI of Entry No. 500044 dated 03.05.05; (3) Bill of Entry No. 500

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 111(m)

All 28 judgments and leading authorities on Section 111(m) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →