COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN Vs. AKASH TRADING CO.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revenue has filed this appeal against the Order -in -Appeal No. 62/2004, dated 30 -3 -2004, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Cochin.

(2.) THE facts of the case are as follows : - The appellants imported 75,000 pieces of Energy Saving Lamp falling under sub -heading 8539.22. In terms of Notification No. 138/2002 -Cus., dated 10 -12 -2002, the Government of India imposed provisional anti -dumping duty on the Compact Fluorescent Lamps falling under sub -heading 8539.31, imported from Peoples Republic of China/Hong Kong. Therefore the Department issued a show cause notice to the appellants demanding duty of Rs. 2,01,052/ - being the anti -dumping duty payable by the appellants on account of the levy of anti -dumping duty. The Original authority confirmed the demand in his order dated 10 -6 -2003. Subsequently, the Department realised the error in computing anti -dumping duty of Rs. 1,01,99,142/ - instead of Rs. 2,10,052/ -. Therefore, the Adjudicating authority issued a corrigendum dated 27 -8 -2003, modifying the confirmed demand to Rs. 1,01,99,142/ -. The appellant approached the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the impugned goods at the time of import were classified under sub -heading 8539.22 but the anti -dumping duty both provisional and final was imposed on CFL falling under sub -heading 8539.31. In view of this, the anti -dumping duty under Notification No. 138/2002 is not applicable to the impugned goods. Moreover, the Original demand in the show cause notice is for Rs. 2,10,052/ - only. This cannot be increased to Rs. 1,01,99,192/ - by issue of a corrigendum. The Commissioner (Appeals) relying on several case laws held that confirm demands cannot traverse beyond the scope of the show cause notice. Further he held that Section 154 of the Customs Act is for carrying out correction of errors that have crept in the orders issued. This section does not permit modification of an amount mentioned in the show cause notice. In view of the above findings he allowed the appeals of the appellants. The Revenue is aggrieved over the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the following grounds : -

(3.) SHRI V.M. Doiphode, learned Advocate appeared for the Respondents and Shri R.N. Viswanath, learned SDR appeared for the Revenue.