Diwan Saheb Fashions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act (59 of 1988)section 168: [dr.arijit pasayat & asok kumar ganguly,jj] compensation - multiplier method held, it involves ascertainment of loss of dependency or multiplicand. choice of multiplier is determined by age of deceased and by calculation as to what capital sum would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. section 168: [dr.arijit pasayat & asok kumar ganguly,jj] compensation determination - deceased riding scooter died in accident with bus - he was aged 43 years and earning rs. 12000/-p.m. as contractor applying multiplier of 10 and making 1/3rd deduction claimants would be entitled to compensation of rs.2,40,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. section 168 :[dr.arijit pasayat & asok kumar ganguly,jj] compensation multiplier method held, the multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalising the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. the choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. in ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last. deceased aged 43 years at time of accident and was hawker. multiplier of 10 and rate of interest @ 6% p.a. would be appropriate and not multiplier of 15 and interest rate @ 9% p.a. fixed by high court. compensation was determined at rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. order1. by consent the matter is taken up for final hearing.2. in this case the matter needs to be remitted to the tribunal to decide whether there existed dummy units set up by the assessee as alleged by the department. if so, whether transactions undertaken by the assessee have been routed through the dummy units. it is in this context that the tribunal will also decide as to who was the real manufacturer of the items in question. depending on the answers to the above issues the tribunal will then decide the question regarding applicability of the exemption notification.3. accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside, the matter is remitted to the tribunal for consideration in accordance with law.4. accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. By consent the matter is taken up for final hearing.

2. In this case the matter needs to be remitted to the Tribunal to decide whether there existed dummy units set up by the assessee as alleged by the Department. If so, whether transactions undertaken by the assessee have been routed through the dummy units. It is in this context that the Tribunal will also decide as to who was the real manufacturer of the items in question. Depending on the answers to the above issues the Tribunal will then decide the question regarding applicability of the Exemption Notification.

3. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for consideration in accordance with law.

4. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.