Page 55 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] COURT-ROOM HIGHLIGHTS A29

ple, was not co-relatable with the disputed product and hence, the same was not
reliable.
The Tribunal had also held that since the test report of CRCL was not
giving any conclusive finding on BIS parameters with regard to moisture con-
tent, nicotine, total ash and acid insoluble ash contained in Zarda Scented Tobac-
co and Chewing Tobacco as mentioned at Entry Nos. 1523441994 and 1530411994
respectively, the denial of the request for re-testing of samples had amounted to
violation of principles of natural justice.
REPRESENTED BY : Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG, Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR,
Mr. Sharath Nambia, Ms. Sunita Rani Singh, Mr.
Vatsal Joshi and Mr. Shreekantha P.S., Advocates, for
the Appellant.
Mr. Kishan Datta, AOR, Mr. Pravesh Bahuguna, Ms.
Pankhuri Shrivasatava, Mr. Aditya Kumar and Mr.
Harish Fulara, Advocates, for the Respondent.

Tiles — Semi-finished tiles imported from China by Sri
Lankan supplier who after undertaking polishing
and sizing exported to India, whether liable to Anti-
dumping duty under Notification No. 73/2003-Cus.?
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Ranjan
Gogoi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta on 4-7-2019 after condoning the
delay issued notice in Civil Appeal Diary No. 18793 of 2019 filed by Commis-
sioner of Customs, Bangalore against the CESTAT Final Order No. 20949/2018,
dated 9-7-2018 as reported in 2020 (372) E.L.T. 143 (Tri.-Bang.) (Commissioner v.
Tile Italia Mosaics Pvt. Ltd.).
The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order had held that polished
porceilein/vitrified floor tiles imported from Sri Lankan supplier who received
semi-finished tiles from China and after undertaking polishing and sizing thereof
exported to India, are to be considered to have originated from Sri Lanka and not
from China and not liable to Anti-dumping duty under Notification No.
73/2003-Cus.
REPRESENTED BY : Mr. V. Shekhar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,
AOR, Mr. Sibo Shankar Mishra, Ms. Aruna Gupta,
Mr. Shashank Shekhar and Ms. Sheetal Rajput, Advo-
cates, for the Appellant.

Tobacco Powder (Snuff) — Classification as manufactured
tobacco or unmanufactured Tobacco, evidence there-
of?
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M.
Khanwilkar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari on 29-11-2019 after
condoning the delay admitted the Civil Appeal Diary No. 38752 of 2019 filed by
Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Ahmedabad-III against the
CESTAT Final Order Nos. A/10979-10985/2019-WZB/AHD, dated 4-6-2019 as

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  103