9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir cigarettes manufactured from their franchised Units and M/s. M.P. Tobacco Ltd. is one of them. M/s. G.T.C. Industries Ltd. is sending Cut-Tobacco and packaging material of cigarettes to M/s. M.P. Tobacco Ltd. during the period 5-4-90 to 9-11-91. The Revenue found that though in the record of M/s. G.T.C. Industries Ltd., they despatched tobacco as well as packaging material to M/s. M.P. Tobacco Ltd. but at the Sales Tax barrier Form XXV-A filled by the appellants shows that only Cut-Tobacco transported by the trucks. A show cause notice was issued on the basis of Form XXV-A asking for duty of Cut-Tobacco which was not reflected in their record. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty and imposed penalties on the appellants. 2. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the appellants is that, if, the Revenue succeeded in this case, the duty should be much less as demanded by the adjudicating authority as the Cut-Tobacco was used by M/s. M.P. Tobacco Ltd. manufacturer of Cigarettes. 3. The contention of the Revenue is that Forms XXV-A were signed by the responsible Officer of M/s. G.T.C. Industries Ltd. and in the Forms, it was specifically mentioned that the Forms, while submitting at Sales Tax Post with the consignment, is of the Cut-Tobacco and these Forms were duly accepted by the Sales Tax Authorities and no Sales tax was charged on any packaging material. It shows that the consignment under consideration, only of Cut-Tobacco and the arguments of the appellants is that the consignment of Cut-To ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants cannot plead that those documents are false. 6. Appellants also pleaded that the Cross-examination of drivers was not allowed. The Forms were signed by one Shri J.G. Naik of M/s. G.T.C. Industries Ltd. who admitted this fact in his statement. Therefore, the Forms are prepared by Shri J.G. Naik and not by the drivers as pleaded by the appellants. Further, the drivers were engaged by the appellants and they can easily produced them before the Adjudicating Authority. The Revenue is not relying the statement of the drivers. The Revenue is only relying on the documents submitted by the appellants that the Sales Tax Authorities and the appellants were not disputing these documents. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the plea of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
