Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

Gokuldas Vaingankar Naik and ors. Vs. State of Goa

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2002)DMC1

P.V. Hardas, J.1. The appellants stand convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default simple imprisonment for one month and rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default simple imprisonment for 3 months respectively. It is this conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-IInd, Panaji in Sessions Case No. 43 of 1999, which is being assailed before me in the present appeal.2. The facts necessary for the decision of the appeal are stated hereunder : The first appellant was married to deceased Anjani on 16th February, 1998. After marriage the name of deceased Anjani was changed to Disha. After marriage the deceased and the first appellant started residing at Bhamai. The second appellant is the mother-in-law of deceased Disha @ Anjani. According to the ...

Motwane Manufacturing Co. (P) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The demand of duty of Rs. 9,282.87 in the present case arises as a result of inclusion of National Interest earned on deposit to the assessable value of testing and measuring instruments manufactured and cleared by the appellants herein. It is the case of the assessees that there is no nexus between the deposit/advances received from the customers/dealers and the sale price to the customers, and hence notional interest earned on deposit cannot be include assessable value in the goods.2. We have heard Ld. DR perused the records. We find that the department has not established any nexus between the interest earned deposit and the assessable value. It has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Carborundum Universal Ltd. v. Collector of C.Ex. [1997 (95) ELT 603] that notional interest on advance received from Customers cannot be included in the assessable value unless the department discharges the burden of proving that the extra commercial consideration has affected or influenced th...

Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT725Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In the order impugned in the Appeal E/3085/2000, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Asstt. Commissioner that in determining, under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Valuation Rules, the value for assessment of the yarn that the appellant manufactured and utilised in its factory in the manufacture of fabric the cost that it incurred towards advertising and marketing cost are to be included. In the order impugned in Appeal E/3084/2000, he has upheld the order of the Asstt.Commissioner confirming the demand for duty as a consequence.2. In both these orders, the Commissioner expressed the view that in his opinion these charges are not includible but says that he is bound by the circular issued under Section 37B of the Act by the Board.3. In our order in Cadbury India Ltd. v. CCE in Appeals E/1021 and 1022/2000 [2001 (135) E.L.T. 510 (T)], we had noted that the proviso under Section 37B of the Act specifically excluded the applicability of the circular issued under that sect...

Virat Ship Breaking Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application seeks restoration of the appeal, which the Tribunal has dismissed, solely on the ground that the appeal filed by the department is yet to be decided.2. We do not think this is a valid ground for restoration of the appeal. The department's appeal is for enhancement of the penalty, which has been imposed on the applicant. Enhancement of penalty is not one of the ground that the tribunal has considered and not accepted.Therefore, merger would not apply in this case....

Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The authorities below have held that the refund claim filed by the appellants herein on the ground that Notification No. 325/86 CE has been given retrospective effect from 1.3.1986 exempting the aerated waters from so much of duty of excise already paid on flavouring essences or concentrate is admissible on merits but has credit the amount to the consumer welfare fund established under Section 12C of the Customs Act, and has not sanctioned refund to the appellants on the ground that they did not cross the here of unjust enrichment. In other words the refund claim has not been held to be payable to them for the reason that they did not establish that having recovered to recover the duty they had not passed on duty burden to their customers.2. On hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records we find that there is no material to show that the duty burden has not been passed on to their customers. They have therefore not satisfied us that the bar of unjust enrichment does not operate aga...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Datar Switchgear Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Commissioner's application does not cite any grounds for modifying the stay order of the Tribunal.2. We do think that the amount of duty of Rs. 13.76 lakhs and equivalent penalty justifies out of turn hearing....

Cce Vs. Prophyla Biological Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(100)LC527Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The revenue seeks condonation of delay of approximately 14 days in preferring the above appeal. The grounds for the delay are explained as delay in obtaining various documents/records and connected papers from Divisional Office/Range Office and as a result, delayed the processing of the file. We find that the only papers that have been filed are the adjudication order and the impugned order in appeal. The office of the Assistant Collector is situated at Belapur as well as the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) and is the same premises. In similar situation in more than one case the Tribunal has held that no ground for condonation has been made out. We also note that the authorisation for filing of the appeals states that the appeal has been filed within the statutory period of three months as required under Section 35E(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and yet an application for condonation which is necessary is being filed. This would show how the mind of the Commissioner has ...

Anand CostpIn Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this case vide stay order No. 2918/96-WRB the Bench directed predeposit of Rs. 8 lakhs and also directed furnishing of bank guarantee for further Rs. 8 lakhs within a period of two months.Compliance was reported to the Bench on 13.12.96. The appeal has been listed for final hearing since February 2001. Appellants have not presented themselves on any of the earlier dates for final hearing.Even today there is no representation on behalf of appellant in spite of notice. Further we note that the bank guarantee directed to be executed has already examined and there is no order of extension of the validity of the guarantee before us, therefore the statutory requirement of Section 35F has not been complied with. Hence we dismiss the appeal for non compliance of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944....

Jindal Drilling and Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The duty has been demanded from the applicant on three grounds. The first is on the couplings that it manufactured as a job worker in terms of the procedure under Rule 57F (4). The Commissioner finds these couplings bore their brand name and therefore demanded duty. The question of the brand name would be relevant in a situation where exemption or liability to duty requires or does not require the present of such a brand name. The exemption provided to goods, cleared in terms of Rule 57F (4) contained in notification 214/86 is not included in the case of goods bearing brand name.2. Duty has been demanded on such items as columns, beams etc of steel that the applicant manufactured and used to fabricate its factory sheds. The Commissioner has failed to consider the contention that was raised before her that these goods carries nil rate of duty and are classifiable under Heading 73.08 of the tariff.3. The third demand is on the ground that the applicant cleared to the Oil & Natura...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Kepee Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for rectification of mistake stated to have occurred in the Tribunal's order, declining to refer to the High Court a question of law proposed by the Commissioner.2. There is no provision in law for rectification of a mistake in such an order. In any event, the application does not find any easily perceived mistake in the order, but raises elaborate argument on the issue. If the Tribunal declines to refer a question of law to the High Court, it is always open to the applicant to pray to the High Court to require the Tribunal, in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 35G of the Act, to state the case to the High Court....