Mumbai Court April 2004 Judgments

Nalini and ors. Vs. Vijayprasad and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006ACJ951; 2004(4)ALLMR70

S.T. Kharche, J.1. These two appeals involve common questions and, therefore, can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment. The original claimants have filed First Appeal No. 206 of 1997 taking an exception to the award passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 262 of 1997, whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 56,000 to claimants with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application till realisation mainly on the ground that the compensation awarded is grossly inadequate. Whereas First Appeal No. 15 of 1997 has been filed by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. against the same award passed by Claims Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal wrongly fastened the liability on it to indemnify the owner and that the owner of the vehicle has been exonerated from the payment of compensation.2. Brief facts are required to be stated as under.:Mukundrao Bhoyar died as a result of the accident arising out of the use of mo...

Patodia Glass Inds. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT194Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants have not presented themselves in spite of today's notice of hearing having been sent to them well in advance.Accordingly, I have heard Shri Bidhan Chandra, learned D.R. forth Revenue and gone through the impugned order.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal on the issue of time-bar by refusing to condone the delay of one and half month in filing the appeal. The appellants prayed for condonation of delay on the ground that their workers were on strike and it was not possible for them to take out the relevant paper from the factory. Shri Bidhan Chadra, learned JDR submits that the workers had given a notice to the appellants before going on strike and state that the appellants should have taken reasonable steps to file the appeal in time.3. The appellant contended that the issue is covered in their favour.In view of the fact that the appellants worker were on strike during the relevant period, I am of the view that the same cause a justifiable reason for...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Armo Synthetics Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Being aggrieved with the order Passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue has filed the present appeal. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents. Accordingly, I have heard Shri A.K. Saxena, learned J.D.R. and have gone through the impugned order.2. As per facts on record shop premises of M/s. Deepak Synths. Pvt.Ltd. was put to search on 26.11.1996 and 81 pieces of M.M. Fabrics were recovered and seized on the ground that the same have been received from M/s. Armo Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. without payment of Central Excise duty. Shri Ram Mohan Agarwal) proprietor of the shop admitted having received the goods from M/s Armo Synth. Pvt. Ltd. under 10 Kachcha delivery Challans. The respondents were issued show cause notices which culminated into an order Passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise confiscating the seized goods with an option to the appellants to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 29,000/-. The said fine was appropriated out of the bo...

NavIn Shah, National Cloth Mfg. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. All the three appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they are arising out of the same impugned order of authorities below.M/s National Leather Cloth Manufacturing Co. are engaged in the manufacture of leather cloth and are availing the modvat credit on the various inputs. Credit of Rs. 86,150.75 has been denied to them on the ground that they had availed the same on the basis of Bill of Entry but without receiving the inputs covered under the said Bill of Entry and have diverted the imported PVC resins to the open market. In addition personal penalty of an identical amount have also been imposed to the said appellant. Personal penalty have also been imposed on the other two appellant who are partners of the said partnership firm.2. As per the facts on record, investigation conducted by the Central Excise department into the availment of modvat credit in respect of the resins covered by Bill of Entry dtd.01/07/1998 revealed that the said material was not actually receive...

Dr. Jivaraj Mehta Smarak Health Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT638Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above 2 appeals, arising out of the different Order-in-Original, involve common issue of eligibility to the benefit of Notification No.70/81 Cus dated 26.3.81 and Notification No. 321/87 dated 22.9.87 to different medical equipments imported by the appellants and are hence taken up for hearing together and disposed of by this common order.2. In Appeal No. 622/94-BOM, the goods imported and sought clearance duty free was one set of Doppler unit which has been confiscated with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. One lakh and on which duty demand of Rs. 13,88,750/- has been confirmed and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed, denying the benefit of Notification No.70/81 Cus. (Order No. CC/16/94 ACC dtd.4.1.94) 3. In Appeal No. 650/98-BOM, the goods imported and sought clearance duty free were (1) Cardio VIO B-6/120 with standard accessories video monitor etc.(Switzerland origin), (2) Microwt M5 Holter recorder complete with accessories USA Origin and (3) Compute...

Labdhishree Synthetics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT370Tri(Mum.)bai

1 .The appellants are aggrieved with imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 8,75,000/- under the provision of Rule 96ZQ (5) (ii) on the ground that they have failed to discharge their duty liability determined under the compounded levy scheme by 15th of the month and the balance 50% by the end of the month. As such they were issued three show cause notices proposing imposition of penalty. The said show cause notices were adjudicated by the original authority imposing penalty which were upheld by Commissioner (Appeals).2. The appellants contention duly represented by Shri D.M. Mishra, learned advocate is that Rule 96ZQ (5) (ii )of the Central Excise Rules which has been invoked by the lower authorities was not in existence during the period of alleged offences by the appellants. The same was replaced with effect from 1st of May 2001 by Rule 96ZNC (5) (ii).According to the said rule the assessee was required to discharge the duty liability for the 1st fortnight by 20th of that month and ...

P.V. Rao Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs.5 lakhs each arise out of the order-in-original Nos. 22 & 23/2002 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad. In brief the case of the department is that M/s. Vikram Projects Ltd. imported plastic raw materials duty free under their special import licences from Kandla and diverted these goods in the local market. Penalty on the present applicant has been imposed as he is the general manager of the importer.3. We find that the applicant's statement was recorded in which he reposed that special import licences have been obtained by M/s. Vikram Projects Ltd., that the goods were imported, that documents of import and licences were handed over to clearing agency, that various delivery challans reflecting receipt of goods by M/s. Vikram Projects Ltd. were false as no goods were received by the importer after Customs clearance and most of the consignments were disposed of in the local market to various brokers and trad...

Cce Vs. Krishna Inds.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(115)LC255Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing Shri Bidhan Chandra, learned JDR, I find that the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Ahmedabad dropped the demand against the respondents by following the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Coimbatore v. Venkateshwar Steel Inds.reported in 1996 (40) RLT 796 (CEGAT-SRB) : 1997 (73) ECR 574 (T). The Revenue filed on appeal their before the Commissioner (Appeals) who took into consideration the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. and also Revenue's contention that reference application has been made to the Hon'ble High Court.However, he observed that there is no stay of the earlier orders of the Tribunal and hence rejected the Revenue's appeal.2. Being aggrieved with the above order, revenue has filed the present appeal on the same ground. Since there is no stay of the Tribunal's Judgment which are in favour of the respondents holding that the assessee would be entitled to the deemed modvat credit even aft...

Piaggio Greaves Vehicles Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT565Tri(Mum.)bai

1 .The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of 3 wheelers prior to July 1999. They were manufacturing a particular model of 3 wheeler called "GARUDA". The said model, they stopped the manufacturing of the said model and switched, over to the new Model "Piaggio". At that point of time, the appellants were having stock of inputs which was meant for exclusive use in the model GARUDA. The total modvat credit in respect of the said inputs was to the tune of Rs. 4,30,711/-, which was also lying in their credit at the time of switching over. The appellants were issued a show cause notice dtd.27/08/2001 proposing the reversal of credit of Rs. 4,30,711/-. The said show cause notice was confirmed by the Joint Commissioner, who apart from the confirmed demand of duty, also imposed personal penalty of an identical amount. Appeal against the above order did not succeed before Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal.2. The appellant's main contention is that they have availed the cred...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Momai Brass Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) the revenue has filed this appeal. Accordingly, I have heard Shri Bidhan Chandra, JDR appearing for the revenue. The respondents have made a prayer for decision on the basis of the written submission filed by them.2. As per facts and circumstances, the premises of transporters company was visited by the Preventive Officers of Central Excise on 02.02.2000 when a truck loaded with the excisable goods was found. They seized various goods loaded in the truck as the same were not accompanied with the invoices. The respondents, who were manufacturer of various brass items, claimed a part of the goods and contended that the same were cleared under the cover of invoice which could not be delivered to the transport authority on account of mistake on the part of the person handling the goods.3. On the above basis show cause notice was issued to the transporters proposing confiscation of the goods and also imposition of penal...