Mumbai Court September 2003 Judgments

Mohammed Akbar and anr. Vs. Mustafa Khan and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2004)ACC820; 2004(2)ALLMR847

S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard Mr. H.M.S. Athar, the learned Advocate for the appellants. None present for the respondent No. 2 though served.2. Learned Advocate Mr. V.L. Somalwar who appears for the respondent No. 3 was heard along with the learned Advocate for the appellant on earlier occasion i.e., on September 19, 2003. Hearing of this appeal was adjourned as the learned Counsel at that time sought time for referring some judicial pronouncements which according to them are relevant in this appeal.3. The appellants are hapless parents of deceased Niyaz Ahmed who was about 5 years old on the date of vehicular accident. The appellants had filed the Claim Petition No. 32/1984 for grant of compensation. The appellants' case is that, their only son Niyaz Ahmed was standing near the house of his maternal grandfather by the side of Jabalpur-Nagpur road at Kamptee, on October 171983, in the morning, at about 11.30 a.m. The goods touch bearing No. URS-9785 coming from the side of Jabalpur and was...

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Olivia Vaz and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2004)ACC537; 2004(3)ALLMR467

R.J. Kochar, J.1. The appellant is the Insurance Company, which is aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa at Margao on 17th December, 1991, in Claim Petition No. 241 of 1988 filed by the claimants, the widow and the sons and daughters of the deceased who met with a fatal Accident on 16th May, 1988. The deceased was knocked down by a passenger mini bus owned by one Shri Pankaj Shukla, respondent No. 2, before the Tribunal and respondent No. 16 before this Court. The respondent No. 1 was the driver of the said bus which was insured with respondent No. 3 before the Tribunal and the present appellants. The liability of the Insurance Company in the policy which was valid for the period from 6th August, 1987 to 5th August, 1988, was Rs. 50,000/-. There is no dispute that the motor vehicle was a passenger vehicle and there is also ho dispute that the deceased was run over by the said passenger bus. There is also no dispute that the deceased...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Bhawana Exports, Rasayano,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC303

1. This appeal is filed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Customs House, Mumbai against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai in his order No. BRI/BZO/a/19/95-5/10-18/ABC/6511/B dated 30.8.96 issued on 18.9.96. M/s. Bhawana Exports, Bombay imported 297.440 M.T. of Crude Naphthalene valued at Rs. 47,79,826/- under DEEC scheme. The said goods were cleared duty free under Notification No. 203/92 Cus. dated 19.5.92 vide DEEC No. 133858 dated 4.4.94 and the advance licence No. 0322441 dated 29.3.94. They however sold away 236.722 M.T. out of the imported material to one M/s. Rasayano, Mumbai, even before the export obligation is fulfilled. The sale was done through their supporting manufacturer M/s. Gandhar Petrochemical Ltd. M/s Gandhar Petrochemical Ltd. received full payment for this quantity from M/s Rasayano, Mumbai. These facts were corroborated by various statements recorded. Such a sale of imported goods cleared under duty free advance licence, contravenes provi...

Goyal Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC111

1. The officers of the department acting on information received by them attempted to stop a truck that had left the factory of 100% export, oriented unit of Goyal Industries Ltd., Palsana, Surat District. It failed to do so. It subsequently found the vehicle which had been abandoned was carrying 134 cartons of 40/13 and 10 cartons of 20/1 of nylon filament yarn. 134 of 40/13 yarn were found covered by a CT3 certificate issued for transporting these goods from the premises of the appellant to the premises of another 100% export oriented unit.The remaining 10 cartons were not covered by any such certificate.Ranbeersain R. Goyal the director of the firm appeared before the officer on 2.3.2000 and claimed that he had bought 10 cartons from the market on payment of cash. He could not produce any bill or furnish any evidence as to the identity of the seller. Notice was issued by the department demanding duty under Section 28 on these 10 cartons of 20/1 yarn proposing confiscation under Sec...

Mogora Cosmic Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Modvat credit was denied in appeal by the Commissioner on the findings: a) Credit claimed on basis of Gatepass issued by M/s Finelox Industries even if they contained all the particulars since there was an endorsement in the name of M/s Cotmac Ltd. and endorsed invoices are not eligible for credited and Challan cum invoice issued by M/s Cotmac were not invoices issued at the time of dispatch and were in any case not submitted to the department and were produced only after notice was ordered and they do not carry pointed serial number or marks as original/duplicate etc. b) Details of the manufacturer of the goods not borne on the documents and goods were not directly purchased from the manufacturer. Even if M/s RV Trading Company is accepted as wholesale dealer they had purchased from M/s Select Wires who in turn have purchased from the manufacturer and it was only after 4.7.94 second stage dealers were permitted and the invoice issued on 9.5.94 could not be accepted. c) As regard i...

Atul Limited, Lalit Patni and Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT519Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Vide the impugned order the Commissioner of Central Excise has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 1,05,37,293/- and imposed a penalty of equal amount on the manufacturer and penalties of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 2,50,000/- respectively on its General Manager and the Assistant Manager (Excise & Customs). The duty demand has been confirmed as a result of holding that the unit at Atul and the Ankleshwar unit to which the Atul unit cleared the goods in question (bulk chemicals like sulphuric acid, caustic soda lye etc.) are related persons, that the Atul unit had suppressed the fact of inter-relationship of both the units and costing details of the goods cleared to Ankleshwar unit for which no correct price declaration was filed, that the value of goods cleared by Atul unit to Ankleshwar unit is required to be determined under Rule 8, which provides that: "where the excisable goods are not sold by the assessee but are used for consumption by him or on his behalf in the production or manu...

Kraps Chem Pvt. Ltd. and R.P. Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit duty of Rs. 92,53,196/- confirmed against the manufacturing company and penalty of equal amount imposed upon it and penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed upon its Director arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat.The demand has been confirmed on the ground that the process carried out by the assessees of blending bought out guar dal powder with additives such as saw dust and tamarind kernel powder using glyxol and methanol for dispersion of powder from the sides of blender in which the mixing took place, is a process amounting to manufacture of guar gum falling for classification under CETA sub-heading 1301.10, rejecting the contention of the assessee that the process carried out does not amount to manufacture. The extended period of limitation has been invoked, holding that they were guilty of suppression.2. We have heard both sides. We find that the Commissioner has given a detailed finding that the process carried o...

Sumeet Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT335Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Both assessee and Revenue have filed the appeals against the same order. These appeals are being disposed off by this common order.2. Appellants are a manufacturer of Ploy Propylene Dop dyed yarn out of P.P. chips and also texturing the same. On 24.06.1996, the officers visited the appellants' factory and found that 197 cartons containing P.O.Y. yarn and 136 cartons of texturised yarn were not entered is the R.G. 1 production records. Proceedings were launched. The non-accounted goods were ordered to be confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 1 lakhs was imposed under Rule 173Q(1) on the appellants and Rs. 1,000/- on the Excise Clerk. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the fine to Rs. 75,000/- and penalty to Rs. 25,000/- and allowed the appeal of the Excise Clerk in full after coming to the conclusion - ".....However looking to the gravity of the case and consideration of the fact that the seizure was effected for non-accountal of goo...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Welset Extrutionists

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue has filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) who has set aside the order of lower authority denying the benefit of credit of Rs. 8,500/- and penally of Rs. 5,000/- imposed on the respondent a manufacturer after coming to the findings :- i) As regards the two allegations in the show cause notice viz., that the dealer has no godown, to receive store and dispatched the goods, that the RG 23D Register is not maintained by the dealer. These requirements not to be complied with by the manufacturer. ii) As regards the remaining allegation in the notice there is no dispute about the receipt of the goods or format of the invoice or duty paid nature, which indicate that manufacturer has taken proper steps to ensure taking credit of an duty paid goods since the department has failed to establish the non duty paid nature of the goods. There was no cause of penalty and or case for denial of credit. ii) Invoices do not conform to the format as required under Rule 57G...

The Indian Seamless Metal and Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(115)LC605Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri M. P. Battin, Sr. Officer - Excise appeared on behalf of the appellants and he submitted that the Hydraulic oil used in the machinery for its smooth functioning, is eligible for modvat credit in view of the following decisions:Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Meerut v. Modi Rubber Ltd. 2. The learned representative contended that the Hydraulic oil used in the machinery is essential for the working and indirectly connected with the manufacture of the final product. Hence the same would be eligible for modvat credit. In this regard, he heavily relied on the larger bench decision (Supra).3. Shri M.H. Sheikh, Ld. JDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue and he contended that the Hydraulic oil used for running the machinery, certainly cannot be considered as being used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product and as such it is not eligible for modvat credit and the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly denied the same following the decision in the case of Kanoria S...