Page 258 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

144 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

as claimed by the respondents. It also proposed to confiscate the goods and im-
pose penalty. The respondents contended before the original authority that what
has originated in China was only rough silicone earth bricks (Vitrified) and the
polished vitrified tiles which is subject to anti-dumping duty were produced in
Sri Lanka by their suppliers. They relied upon the certificate issued by the Cey-
lon Chamber of Commerce which certified the goods have been produced or
manufactured in Sri Lanka. The lower authority ordered final assessment by lev-
ying anti-dumping duty/interest and imposed penalty holding that the imported
goods originated in China. Aggrieved by the order of assessment passed by the
lower authority, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner, who allowed
the appeal of the assessee. Hence the present appeal by the Revenue.
3. Heard the Learned AR for the Revenue. None appeared on behalf of
the respondent. Since the issue is in a narrow compass, we proceed to dispose of
the appeal on the basis of material on record.
4. Learned AR for the Revenue submitted that the Impugned order is
not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without appreciating the facts
and the law. The Learned AR further submitted that the Commissioner (Ap-
peals) has given the relief to the assessee by relying upon the earlier order of
CESTAT against which the Department is proposing to file an appeal before the
Apex Court. During the course of argument, it has come to our notice that on
identical Issue relating to the same assessee for the earlier period, the Tribunal
vide its Final Order No. 1645/2006, dated 3-10-2006 in Appeal No. C/53/2006
[Reported in 2007 (208) E.L.T. 437 (Tri.-Ban.)], has taken a decision in favour of
the assessee. In para 4 of the order, the Tribunal has held as under :-
4. On a careful consideration and perusal of facts sent by the Sri Lankan
Customs to the DD, DRI, which is relied by the Revenue, it is seen that raw
materials namely rough silicons earth bricks imported from China have
undergone various processes of manufacture to bring into existence tiles.
There is a value addition of more than 40% in terms of the said letter itself.
Therefore, in terms of Rule 8 of Customs Tariff (DOGFTA between Sri
Lanka and India) Rules, 2000, the goods are deemed to be imported from
Sri Lanka as there is value addition of more than 35%. Therefore, the au-
thorities below have overlooked the provisions of Rule 8 which clearly lays
down that when there is an aggregate value addition in the territories of
contracting parties of not less than 35% of FOB value of the product under
export, then the export is deemed to be from the contracting party, that is in
the present case Sri Lanka, which has exported the tiles. The imposition of
Anti-Dumping duty in the present case is not justified and hence, the same
is set aside by allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if any.
5. Since the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the
order cited supra. Therefore by following the ratio of the said decision, we find
that there is no infirmity in the impugned order which is upheld by dismissing
the appeal of the Revenue.
(Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in
open Court on 9-7-2018)
_______

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  306