D.C. Polyester Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

D.C. Polyester Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jun 17, 2005

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/39390

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/39390
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: K Kumar
Decided On: Jun 17, 2005
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

D.C. Polyester Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(188)ELT423Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

2. the ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that in his written submission filed before the tribunal he has specifically mentioned that the issued involved in the present case is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the decision in the appellant's own cases of commissioner of customs, mumbai-ii v. d.c. polyesters pvt. ltd. reported in 2004 (176) e.l.t. 471 (tri. - mumbai) and commissioner of central excise, mumbai-iii v. d.c. polyester pvt. ltd. . while passing the order these two decisions have not been considered and as such the order suffers from the patent error and as such he submitted that the rom application may be allowed.3. the ld. jdr has no serious objection in allowing the rom application.4. i, therefore, allow the rom application. the case is fixed for regular hearing on 22-7-05.

Full Judgment

2. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that in his written submission filed before the Tribunal he has specifically mentioned that the issued involved in the present case is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the decision in the appellant's own cases of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai-II v. D.C. Polyesters Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2004 (176) E.L.T. 471 (Tri. - Mumbai) and Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III v. D.C. Polyester Pvt. Ltd. . While passing the order these two decisions have not been considered and as such the order suffers from the patent error and as such he submitted that the ROM application may be allowed.

3. The ld. JDR has no serious objection in allowing the ROM application.

4. I, therefore, allow the ROM application. The case is fixed for regular hearing on 22-7-05.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties D.C. Polyester Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Excise Same Judge K Kumar