Polycem Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Polycem Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Dec 06, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/26917

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/26917
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Dec 06, 2001
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Polycem Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2002)(80)ECC433

Excerpt

1. this appeal is against the order of the collector where in he has confirmed the recovery of duty no paid on the goods removed without accounting the same and imposed a penalty. after hearing both the side for some time, it was successfully pointed out by the ld. advocate for the appellants that a plea had been taken by them in para 3 of their reply dt. 15.04.94, as regards certain large quantities of the goods received back by them under the provisions of rule 173 h for reprocessing, along with the registers produced in evidence thereof, which was not considered by the adjudicator. if this quantity of reprocessed goods was considered, the collector he could have come to a conclusion about the exact quantity of goods not accounted or the quantum of clandestine clearance. since the appellant submits that this fact has not been considered by the adjudicator to which the ld. d.r.agrees, i have no hesitation in setting aside the order and remanding the mater back to the collector for denovo adjudication keeping all the matters and issues open to be re-deciding as per law. since this issue is pending for along time, i would consider fixing a time of 3 months from the date of this order to complete the re-adjudication.

Full Judgment

1. This appeal is against the order of the Collector where in he has confirmed the recovery of duty no paid on the goods removed without accounting the same and imposed a penalty. After hearing both the side for some time, it was successfully pointed out by the Ld. Advocate for the appellants that a plea had been taken by them in Para 3 of their reply dt. 15.04.94, as regards certain large quantities of the goods received back by them under the provisions of Rule 173 H for reprocessing, along with the registers produced in evidence thereof, which was not considered by the adjudicator. If this quantity of reprocessed goods was considered, the Collector he could have come to a conclusion about the exact quantity of goods not accounted or the quantum of clandestine clearance. Since the appellant submits that this fact has not been considered by the adjudicator to which the Ld. D.R.agrees, I have no hesitation in setting aside the order and remanding the mater back to the Collector for denovo adjudication keeping all the matters and issues open to be re-deciding as per law. Since this issue is pending for along time, I would consider fixing a time of 3 months from the date of this order to complete the re-adjudication.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Polycem Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Criminal