Mumbai Court April 2004 Judgments

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Dolly Thakore

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2004)ACC56; 2006ACJ1720; 2004(4)ALLMR364

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard advocate for BMC, appellant and for the respondent. This appeal is filed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in Application No. 2072 of 1982, wherein the respondent was awarded compensation of Rs. 5,74,800 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of application, i.e., 8.12.1982 till realisation and costs by award dated 26.6.1987.2. Claim petition before M.A.C.T. filed by the respondent arose in the following circumstances:On 17.7.1982 at about 12.10 a.m., i.e., at midnight respondent was travelling in motor taxi No. MRO 5005. Taxi was proceeding from Raj Bhavan to Chowpatty. At that time a bus of the BEST undertaking No. MRL 5155 came from Walkeshwar Road. The bus was going downwards and taxi was climbing upwards. According to the respondent the bus driver was driving the bus in an uncontrollable speed and was driving in a rash and negligent manner, therefore, it collided with the taxi. As a result taxi was smashed, driver a...

Shri Jayantilal H. JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. I have heard Shri N.B. Sonawane, Ld. Consultant appearing for the appellant and Shri A.K. Saxena, Ld. JDR for the revenue.2. Vide his Order-in-Original Dy. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai ordered for absolute confiscation of one foreign marked gold biscuit, one gold piece and gold ornaments totally valued at Rs. 3,62,000/-.Indian currency of Rs. 43,500/- recovered from the appellant under the provisions of Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962. In addition to the above personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on the appellant.3. On an appeal against the above order, Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the same by observing as under:- "I have carefully gone through the records of the case and heard the consultant. I find that the appellant in his statement recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 admitted to the offence. Subsequently after a lapse of 5 months, the appellant furnished a purchase bill to prove that the impugned goods were acquired legally. I am of opinion that t...

Jetex Carburettors Pvt. Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Originally a Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellants proposing to deny the modvat credit in respect of Zin ingots on the ground that same has been availed by the appellants at the time of sending the said input directly to the job worker's factory from the inputs suppliers whereas as per Board's instructions the same was to be availed after the receipt of the processed goods.2. Subsequently, the matter came up before Tribunal and was disposed of vide Order No. C-I/2956/WZB.2000 dtd.30/08/2000. Paragraph 2 of the said order reads as follow:- "The contention of the representative of the appellant that it was unaware of the correct procedure which was notified by the Board much later is not convincing. However, another aspect has to be considered. The Board's circular of 1996 provided that credit in such a situation can be taken after the inputs are received from the job worker. If that is the correct view, it would then follow that the appellant would be entitled to the credit...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mayank Electro Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The present appeal of the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner imposing penalties upon the respondents on the ground that they cleared the goods on 14/03/1995 after 6.00 p.m. and has thus violated the pre-budget date declaration. The Commissioner (Appeals) while disposing of the appeal has held as under:- "I have considered the matter and I find that the adjudicator has found that the panchnama indicates the tempo to be intercepted 100/150 feet from the factory at 21.15 hrs. on 14.3.95 and the driver produced 8 invoices all dtd. 14.3.95 which showed the tempo No. as MH-04-4420 and time of removal as 16.00 hrs. He also relied on statement of Shri Navalsingh Nansingh which admitted that the tempo was loaded on or before 17.00 hrs. and left at about 9.00 p.m. from Bombay and the loading took place between 17.30 to 21.00 hrs. The labourer has admitted to have loaded the goods at about 17.00 hrs. I al...

Suryalakshmi Cotton Textile Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT492Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The stay application arose out of the order of Commissioner of Central Excise Nagpur. In the impugned order he demanded differential duty of Rs. 4,90,51,770/- (BED + AED) under Section 11A and imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,00,000/-(Thirty lakhs under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules 2002.2. Briefly the facts are that the applicant is a manufacturer of cotton yam, Denim fabrics containing 85% or more by weight of cotton and Denim fabrics less than 85% by weight of cotton mixed with MMF. A part of the cotton yarn made by the applicant was cleared on payment of duty and the other was captively consumed in the manufacture of Denim fabrics of both types mentioned above. Such fabrics were cleared on payment of duty (8% BED + 4% AED) by availing of the benefit of Notification No.14/2002 CE dt. 1.3.2002. This rate of duty is applicable under the said notification subject to condition 2 and 5 of the notification. The dispute pertains to the meaning of expression "appropriate duty........has be...

Audichem (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT643Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing Shri Hardik Moth, learned Advocate and Shri A.K.Saxena, learned J.D.R. I find that the issue involved in the present appeals is refund claim of Rs. 1,15,403/-. As per the appellants, the said refund claim is of the duty paid on the inputs which have been used by them in the manufacture of the export goods, cleared on bond and the refund claim is in terms of provision of Rule 57A (13).However, the same was inadvertently filed by them under the provision of Rule 173L. they were issued a Show Cause Notice dtd. 11.11.1996 proposing to reject the refund claim on the ground that Rule 173L is not applicable. However, notice also took into consideration the provision of Rule 173H and sought to deny the refund claim on the ground that no manufacture has taken place in the appellant's factory and as such Rule 173H is also not applicable. The claim was also sought to be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment. The said Show Cause Notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Commiss...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sigma Transformers and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT377Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals by Revenue, on similar issue are being disposed off by this common order. a) Goods was sold by Tender contract prices based on Ex works price to Maharashtra State Electricity Board. The inclusion of equalized freight from factory gate to buyers premises were as allowed by CCE(Appeals) even on clearance made after 1.7.2000. Hence these appeals by Revenue on the grounds:- i) The place of removal as per the definition given in Section 4(3) (e) not considered especially the restoration of the place of removal as defined prior to 1.7.2000 by amendment made in Finance Bill 2003 (Clause 128) ii) Board's order No. 59/1/2003 -CX dated 3.3.2003 stipulates, the determination of place of removal only after reading the terms of the contract especially para 1-0,2,9 & 16 to 18 23 & 27 which casts liabilities on the seller (assessessees in this easel) & assessments should be under Section 4(1)(b) not under Section 4(1)(a) as arrived at by the CCE(Appeals) iii) The ratio o...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. As per the facts on record, the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of bright bars falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In course of the preventive checks, it was found that the respondents had raised debit notes from their client collecting value in excess of the assessable value.Accordingly, differential demand of duty of Rs. 88,655/- was confirmed against them alongwith confirmation of interest and imposition of personal penalty of identical amount. The Adjudicating officer also refused to issue a certificate endorsement of Rule 57E of the Central Excise Rules for the excess duty paid by the respondents.2. On an appeal against the above order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the penalty imposed under Rule 11AC is excessive and as per the amendment to Section 11AC made by Section 96 of the Finance Act, 2000, it is laid down that penalty of 25% of the duty amount is imposable if the amount of duty is paid by the assessee. Acc...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. G.H. Singhvi and ors.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Konkan Synthetics Fibres (proprietor Century Enka Ltd. hereinafter referred to as M/s. CEL), C-61, MIDC, Mahad (hereinafter referred to as M/s. KSF) held a Central Excise Registration for manufacture of partially oriented yarn (POY) and different types of processed yarn (POY) falling under CH. 54.02 and 55.05 of CETA, 1985 respectively, in a single composite plant. They were availing Modvat/Cenvat credit and paying Central Excise duty on ad-valorem basis. They submitted an application dtd. 16.3,2000 and requested for bifurcation of the existing manufacturing site at Plot No. C-61MIDC, Mahad into two parts. According to them, such bifurcation was necessitated to implement product group management concept and to give greater flexibility and more freedom in decision making, manufacturing as well as marketing of the products. They also requested for separate Central Excise Registration of these two premises to be carved out of the original site...

Supreme Industries Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver and stay arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Cen.Excise, Pondicherry, who has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 60,34,988/- on the ground that there was no evidence on record to show that the fire which occurred in the applicants' factory on 25.3.01 resulting in destruction of plastic moulded furnitures on which duty has been confirmed, was not caused by unavoidable accident, and imposed penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs on the applicants.2. We have heard both sides. The application for remission of duty on goods destroyed in the fire was made on 8.5.01, the present show cause notice demanding duty was issued on 8.11.01; the claim for remission was rejected and communicated to the applicants on 5.2.02; the applicants filed appeal against the rejection and the Tribunal vide its order No.C-I/4308-09/WZB/2002 dated 18.12.02 in Appeal No. E/893/2002 set aside the rejection and remanded the case; fresh notice was issued on 13.5.03; the Commissioner once again uph...