(1.) BEING aggrieved by the Order dated 12 -11 -2009 made in W.P. No. 23063 of 2009 ( : 2012 (275) E.L.T. 185 (Mad.)) directing the appellant to deposit Rs. 75 lakhs and on such deposit the Tribunal to take up the appeal, the appellant has preferred this appeal. A demand of Rs. 2,73,31,320/ - was raised towards anti -dumping duty against import of Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL) with chokes imported through various Bills of Entry from the exporting country/China. As per Notification No. , dated 21 -12 -2001 issued and effective up to and inclusive of 20th day of June, 2002, provisional anti -dumping duty was imposed on CFL with or without choke originating in or exported from China or from Hong Kong to India. The appellants provisionally cleared the goods' pending determination of anti -dumping duty. When final Notification No. of 2002, dated 10 -12 -2002 was issued making the levy effective from 21 -12 -2001, the Department demanded anti -dumping duty of Rs. 2,73,31,320/ - to the aforesaid extent.
(2.) THE appellant did not attend personal hearings fixed by the Department and original authority issued Order -in -Original confirming the demand as aforesaid. Before the impugned order was passed, there had been three rounds of litigations. Upon remand by the Tribunal, the Commissioner (Appeals) for the third time again dealt with the same matter and the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order on 25 -1 -2009 holding that anti -dumping duty can be levied at the: interregnum period in accordance with the provisions of law. Following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Nitco Tiles Ltd. v. Designated Authority, : 2006 (193) E.L.T. 17 and other decisions. Commissioner (Appeals) also held that the appellants themselves submitted bond for clearance of CFL in respect of antidumping and they have never imported energy saving lamps and that the assessee is liable to pay anti -dumping duty the learned Commissioner passed order for pre -deposit of the entire amount demanded.
(3.) CHALLENGING the order of the Tribunal dated 7 -9 -2009 (2009 (243) E.L.T. 359 (Tri. -Chennai)) and seeking for a direction to the Tribunal to hear the appeal filed by the appellant, without insisting for any pre -deposit of antidumping duty, appellant filed writ petition in W.P. No. 23063 of 2009. By the order dated 12 -11 -2009, the learned single judge held that the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. However, considering the financial difficulties of the appellant, the learned single judge directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 75 lakhs within a period of eight weeks and further directed the Tribunal that on such deposit to take up the appeal and dispose the same in accordance with law.