9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (7) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order]. The issue in these three appeals being same, and they are disposed of by this order. 2. The appellant requires for the manufacture of its final products various inputs. It places orders upon various persons for supply of these goods. In these cases that we are concerned with, supply was made, not by the person on whom these orders were placed, but by another person on whom that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, asks for the name and address of the manufacturer or importer/stockyard from whom the input is received. In this column the appellant indicated the name and address of the person on whom it had actually placed the orders. Since these persons did not manufacture these goods and so pay duty on them, these addresses did not correspond with the address of the manufacturers shown in the subsidiary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n between the names on the subsidiary gate passes and the names in the RG 23A register. He states that the innumerable transactions and the discrepancies, which were found, do not support the duty paying character of the goods. 6. It is a matter of normal commercial practice for a person who is required to supply goods in pursuance of a contract to arrange to have them supplied by other persons. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls) say that the goods were not received in the appellant s factory, or that they were not covered by the subsidiary gate passes which issued by the Superintendent. 8. There is however, an area of doubt that the name in RG 23A statutory register do not tally the names in the subsidiary gate passes and that could be possible that the goods in question were not covered by the gate passes. Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
