M. Guru Controls P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

M. Guru Controls P. Ltd. vs Commissioner of C. Ex.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Mar 18, 1997

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/10936

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/10936
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Mar 18, 1997
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M. Guru Controls P. Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Legal References

Reported In: (2000)(115)ELT811Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. penalty of rs. 1.50 lacs on the first applicant and rs. 1.00 lac each upon the other two applicants.2. i have heard both sides. stay applications restored for various grounds in the application.3. the main contention of the advocate for the applicants is that the overdrawal in the ledger was on account of negligence, in that the person who was entrusted to deposit the money failed to do so. this is answered by the departmental representative pointing out that the excise clerk has in his statement implicated the management of the company which compelled him to take the credit, despite the lack of adequate balance in the p.l.a account.4. the claim of negligence prime facie fails for the reason that even tr6 challans have not been prepared and it was only when the department came to know to the facts that the company took action to (sic) the situation. i however find a prima facie case in favour of g. hazara in the absence of evidence of any specific act committed by him. i therefore direct that on each of the first two applicants depositing rs, 55,000/- within two months from today waiver of balance of penalty is granted and its recovery stayed.

Full Judgment

1. Penalty of Rs. 1.50 lacs on the first applicant and Rs. 1.00 lac each upon the other two applicants.

2. I have heard both sides. Stay applications restored for various grounds in the application.

3. The main contention of the Advocate for the applicants is that the overdrawal in the ledger was on account of negligence, in that the person who was entrusted to deposit the money failed to do so. This is answered by the Departmental Representative pointing out that the excise clerk has in his statement implicated the management of the company which compelled him to take the credit, despite the lack of adequate balance in the P.L.A account.

4. The claim of negligence prime facie fails for the reason that even TR6 challans have not been prepared and it was only when the department came to know to the facts that the company took action to (sic) the situation. I however find a prima facie case in favour of G. Hazara in the absence of evidence of any specific act committed by him. I therefore direct that on each of the first two applicants depositing Rs, 55,000/- within two months from today waiver of balance of penalty is granted and its recovery stayed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties M. Guru Controls P. Ltd. vs Commissioner of C. Ex. Same Subject Excise