Skip to content


Dcp Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Decided On

Case Number

Appeal No. C/S/36 of 2009 & C/72 of 2009

Judge

Appellant

Dcp Synthetics Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin

Advocates:

For the Appearing Parties: Naveen Malhotra, Advocate. N.P. Meena, SDR.

Excerpt:


.....kumar anand is in no way connected with them is not controverter by the revenue. hence ld. counsel is correct in his submission that the entire order proceeds to rely upon the statement of unconnected person. interest of justice requires that the matter be decided afresh on the basis of material against the appellants herein. 3. we, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the case for de novo decision to the commissioner (appeals) who shall pass fresh orders after extending a reasonable opportunity to the appellants of being heard in their defence. 4. the appeal is thus allowed by way of remand. fresh orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.

Judgment:


Jyoti Balasundaram

After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of redeposit of duty of Rs.19,02,283/- confirmed by way of differential duty against the assesses herein, on goods imported under 11 Bills of Entry, we find that it is possible to hear and decide the appeal itself at this stage and hence proceed to do so after waiving redeposit.

2. On hearing both sides, we find that the lower appellate authority has based his finding to uphold the demand on the appellants herein on the statement of one Shri Raj Kumar Anand. The contention of the appellants that Shri Raj Kumar Anand is in no way connected with them is not controverter by the Revenue. Hence ld. counsel is correct in his submission that the entire order proceeds to rely upon the statement of unconnected person. Interest of justice requires that the matter be decided afresh on the basis of material against the appellants herein.

3. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the case for de novo decision to the Commissioner (Appeals) who shall pass fresh orders after extending a reasonable opportunity to the appellants of being heard in their defence.

4. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand. Fresh orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //