Page 61 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] COURT-ROOM HIGHLIGHTS A35

doning the delay issued notice in Civil Appeal Diary No. 1818 of 2020 filed by
Ajanta LLP [Formerly known as Ajanta Limited] against the CESTAT Final Order
Nos. A/11783-11785/2019-WZB/AHD, dated 18-9-2019 as reported in 2019 (370)
E.L.T. 308 (Tri.-Ahmd.) (Ajanta Limited v. Commissioner). While issuing notice, the
Supreme Court passed the following order :
“Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a decision of Coor-
dinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ‘Ransar Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E.,
Coimbatore’, Final Order Nos. 40311-40315/2018, dated 30-1-2018, reported
in 2018 (362) E.L.T. 651 and also decision of this Court in ‘Commissioner of
Central Excise v. Carrier Aircon Ltd.’ reported in (2006) 5 SCC 596 = 2006
(199) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) to contend that the view taken in the impugned
judgment is in the teeth of the said decisions.
Delay condoned.
Issue notice, returnable in four weeks.
Dasti, in addition, is permitted.”
The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order had held that the parts of
ceiling fan namely rotors, stator, down case, top case and down rod, etc. except
fan blades, imported together as a set and designed specifically to be a part of the
fan, are classifiable under Heading 8414 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as unassem-
bled, incomplete fan and not under Heading 8503 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
REPRESENTED BY : Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran, AOR, Mr. Aaditya
Bhattacharya, Ms. Apeksha Mehta and Ms. Mounica
Kasturi, Advocates, for the Appellant.

Peas Import — EXIM Notification’s retrospective applica-
tion whether sustainable? Trade Notice of DGFT dat-
ed 16-4-2019 stayed
The Rajasthan High Court Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev
Prakash Sharma on 13-9-2019 listed the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14840 of 2019
filed by Alvarita Edu Solutions Private Limited against Union of India.
While issuing Notice to Union of India, the High Court observed that
while UOI has the power to issue Notification under Section 3 of Foreign Trade
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, prima facie, it is applicable prospective-
ly only and not retrospectively. In interim, it was directed that so far as petitioner
is concerned, it would be applicable prospectively. The Court stayed Trade No-
tice/order dated 16-4-2019 of DGFT on ground that it cannot amend notification
in garb of clarification. The Court also directed Customs authorities to release the
import consignment on payment of duty subject to outcome of petition
REPRESENTED BY : Mr. Ankit Sethi, Advocate, for the Petitioner.

_______

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  109