Jignesh Kanjibhai Patel vs Mumbai / Nhava Sheva on 30 October, 2014
(d) CFL without choke as defined in the final findings is complete ready to use compact fluorescent lamps wherein choke would be external part.
3.10. In view of the clarification issued by the DGAD, it is clear that CFL in SKD/CKD condition were not liable to anti-dumping duty prior to 2008 as they were not covered by the investigation conducted by the DGAD. Revenue has also not adduced any evidence to show that the parts and components imported by the appellants can be bought and sold as complete ready-to-use CFL. Reliance is placed on the following decisions, namely, Anchor Daewoo Industries Ltd. vs. CC, Kandla = 2007 (214) ELT , Wipro Ltd. vs. CC, Chennai 2007 (217) ELT 558 and Philips India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai 2004 (166) ELT 49. 230 wherein it was held that parts of CFL are not covered by the anti-dumping duty Notification No. 138/2002-Cus dated 10/12/2002.