Mumbai Court December 2003 Judgments

Abdul Samee Vs. Mohd. Ishaq

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2004)ACC574; 2004(2)ALLMR798

S.T. Kharche, J.1. Heard.2. In these two appeals common questions are involved and, therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 22,000/- with interest @ 15% per annum from 9.6.1987 till realisation to the claimant-injured by name Abdul Samee Abdul Rehman in Claim Petition No. 30/1988 filed by him under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, the Act). This award has been challenged by the claimant on the ground that compensation awarded to him was neither just nor reasonable and fair in this First Appeal No. 834/1991. Whereas the Tribunal made the owner of the scooter said to have been involved in the Accident liable to pay compensation and the same is challenged by the owner in the First Appeal No. 409/1991 on the ground that the scooter was not at all involved in the Accident.4. Brief facts are as under:The Accident occurred of 3.12.1986 on Karnptee Road near Kumbhare's building of Ganpati at abou...

Cosmic Textiles (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri Hardik Modh, learned Advocate appears and seeks adjournment on the ground that Mr. K.I. Vyas, who is to appear and argue the matter has undergone surgery on his left hand finger and as such he is unable to appear. However, we find that on 1st of December, 2003 Shri Modh appeared and sought adjournment on the ground that Advocate Shri Naresh Thacker, who is to argue the matter is busy before the Hon'ble High Court.2. It was on his request that the matter was adjourned to today when again there is a request for adjournment on altogether different ground. We do not appreciate the above change in the stand of the appellant and accordingly, after rejecting the request for adjournment, we proceed to hear the learned SDR Shri Shukla.3. We have gone through the impugned order confirming demand of duty of Rs. 43,55,394/- and imposing personal penally of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the ground that the fabrics which was originally cleared by the appellants without payment of duty for export purpos...

Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) Vs. Sanjay Badgamia

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT83Tri(Mum.)bai

In Order-in-Appeal No. 246/99-APTS, dated 5-3-1999 (F. No.S/49-45/98-TS). The Learned Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Airport, Mumbai set aside the Order-in-Original No. ADC/AKC/ADJN/10/98, dated 29-5-98 (F. No. SD/INT/HQIU/MISC/61/97), giving benefit of doubt to Shri Sanjay Badgamia. The said benefit of doubt arises from the two possibilities (1) the duty liability on the seized foreign marked gold coins has been met, and (2) the said duly liability has not been met.Payment of duty on gold by passengers arriving from abroad (vide Notification No. 117/92-Cus., dated 1-3-92) is with effect from the 1st of March, 1992. The seized gold coins, having been imported into India on or before 5-3-1991, could not have been licitly cleared on payment of duty or under free allowance. The impugned gold coins have, therefore, not been licitly imported.In view of the date of importation of the foreign marked gold coins preceding the date of Notification No. 117/92-Cus., the said benefit of doubt ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kalpana Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT309Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is a revenue appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The respondents who are located at Dabhel Ind. Co-op. Society Dabhel took modvat credit of Rs. 1,21,592/- being CVD paid against Bill of Entry No. 5684 dated 15/11/1966. The said bill of entry was in favour of M/s Kalpana Industries Ltd., 653/43, Somnath Co-Operative Industrial Society Dabhel, Daman. The said address was not the address of their head office. Since the bill of entry was not in favour of the appellants, the two factories being different and independent Central Excise Duty paying units, the credit was denied by the adjudicating authority on the ground that duty paying document is in the name of (SIC) another factory, though belonging to the same manufacturer. In appeal, however, the respondents succeeded in obtaining a favourable decision from the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), who held that - "The appellants have taken the ground that due to exigency...

Aquapharm Chemical Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing Shri P.R. Joshi, learned Consultant we find that the appellant have already deposited the entire amount of duty of Rs. 52,161/- (Rupees Fifty Two Thousand One Hundred Sixty One only) which has been confirmed on the basis of under valuation of their final products. The said duty is not being disputed by the learned Consultant. He is only aggrieved with the imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) under the provisions of Rule 173Q(i) and confirmation of interest under the provisions of Section 11AB.2. Inasmuch as the entire duty amount stands deposited we dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of personal penalty and proceed to hear the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.3. The impugned order has been passed in denovo proceedings. The earlier order passed by the Commissioner confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 1,30,712/- and imposed personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. In denovo proceedings the duty quantum was reduced to almost 4...

Metadust (ind) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT67Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Issue in this appeal, on facts as admitted by both sides and the Commissioner Appeals, is whether goods received and manufactured on job work basis were required to be entered in RG1 and :if they are not so entered confiscation liability would arise even if goods are found in the factory premises and penalties would be called for in not having followed the procedure of receipt of Modavt inputs on challans for job work and the accounting thereafter as per Rule 57F(2).2. Appeal pertains to the period 1999, when on 16.12.1993 the officers visited the factory they found certain excisable goods in the factory which were not accounted. The Manager admitted to the said facts while the General Manager in April 1994 claimed the goods to be receipts and job work done for another manufacturer from whom Modvated Inputs were receive. The Commissioner (Appeals) after coming to a finding the unaccounted Zinc Dust should be confiscated and redeemed on a fine of Rs. 1,06,000/- under the provisions ...

Asarwa Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant's instant appeal relates to denial of modvat credit of Rs. 141690/- and imposition of penalty of Rs. 15000/- The credit was initially denied to them by the Asst. Commissioner. The credit was denied on capital goods on the ground that the description of the capital goods was not precise as nobody could make out as to what the goods are. On inputs credit was denied on the ground that M/s. IOC Ltd. were not eligible to pass on the credit as they were not having duplicate copy of the invoice for taking credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) concurred with the findings of the AC. Hence the instant appeal. Heard both sides.2. So far as denial of credit on capital goods is concerned I find that, the relevant declaration under Rule 57T(1) do indicate that the description is with reference to the brand name and specification of the item the classification thereof is indicated in the opposite column of the table, for example, item 12 CKD SKODA indicates classification CETH No. 1090...

Shivam Export (100% Eou) Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri Hardik Modh, learned Advocate appears and seeks adjournment.However, we find that adjournment request was also made on 1^st December, 2003 when the matter was adjourned to today. As such we are not inclined to adjourn the matter any further. Accordingly we have heard Shri A. Shukla, learned SDR and have gone through the impugned order vide which the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 11,52,96,406/- (Rupess Eleven Crore Fifty Two Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Four Hundred Six only) with imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores) on the findings that the goods cleared by the appellants for export without payment of duty have been diverted for home consumption.2. On going through the memo of appeal filed by the appellant and the ground taken by them, we find that the above allegations and findings arrived at by the authorities below have not been controverted by the appellant. However, their contention is that they are liable to pay du...

Gauvav Mercantiles Ltd., Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These appeals, arisen from the common order, are being disposed off by this order.2. Appellants in appeal No. E/2548 are assessees under the Central Excise Act, 1944, while in appeal No. E/2549 and E/2550/03 are the clerk and the Manager of the assessee. a) A truck was intercepted on 31.08.2001 carrying exigible copper scrap at about 1930 hours. The weighment ship produced showed the net weight to be 9.160 MT. On locating the Manager of the assessee produced invoice No. 1229 dt 31.08.2001 with same truck number which showed a quantity of 2.510 MT with excise duty paid on it. Since this document did not cover the quantity in the truck the said goods were seized. Consequent enquiries were made. A notice issued, the seized goods were ordered to be confiscated and redeemed on a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. Duty of Rs. 1,31,902 from total amount of Rs. 1,55,844/- deposited on 31.08.2001 and 01.09.2001 i.e. before the SCN dt. 19.04.2002 was issued was appropriated. Penalty of Rs. 1,31,902/- und...

Kisan Pandurang Pachange Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)MhLj261

B.R. Gavia, J.1. The applicant, has preferred the present revision application, under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, dated 27th July, 2000 in Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 1996, thereby dismissing the appeal of the present applicant, filed against the judgment and order, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yavatmal in Summary Criminal Case No. 350 of 1992.2. The applicant/accused, was charged for the offence punishable, under Sections 279, 337, 308 and 304A, of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of charge sheet instituted by P.S.O., Yavatmal (Rural). The prosecution story, in brief is that, on 27-4-1992 at about 08:00 p.m., the applicant/accused Kisan Pandurang Pachange, was under influence of liquor and that when the bus was plying from Jodmoha to Yavatmal, he was driving the bus, in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, an accident occurred, leading to the death of two persons. ...