Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2008 (7) TMI 684

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s made by the above Order were as under and that was required to be complied by the Appellant on 9-7-08 and without compliance with the aforesaid directions, both the Appellants moved these present applications : (1) First Appellant Shri Vijoy Kumar Bhutra Proprietor of M/s. Mirage Enterprise is required to pre-deposit entire amount of drawback availed by the proprietory concern as well as make pre-deposit of entire penalty imposed on that concern in terms of the impugned order within 4 (four) weeks from the date of hearing. In view of the fact that the firm (Proprietory concern) and the proprietor being same Assessee, there shall not be requirement of pre-deposit of penalty imposed separately on the proprietor, Shri Vijoy Kumar Bhutra. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... emo which is a copy of the packing slip. Also the ld. Counsels pleaded that the Appellants were innocent and they have no means to make pre-deposit during pendency of the appeal. Accordingly, they may be exonerated from such obligation and their appeals may be heard on merit. They also pleaded that the Appellants are in extreme financial hardship since huge amounts are sought to be recorded from them. But no evidence to this effect could be produced today for such plea except a plea for allowing time to produce material for such contention. 3.1 Ld. JDR, Shri Loni appearing for Revenue categorically submitted that the Appellants are not able to show to the Tribunal why they preferred to remain absent on the earlier date of hearing i.e. on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nefit availed, to the Treasury. Revenue has made thorough enquiry from different sources to examine genuineness of export. Entire chain of evidence went against them. Neither the purchase could be proved nor transportation thereof was supported by any cogent evidence. Transport owners were also examined and various public records were also verified from different quarters. Tribunal having given patient hearing on the matter on last occasion, has also noticed out that Vehicle numbers furnished by the Appellant was proved to be false for elaborate discussions at page 31 of order of adjudication. Not only the claim of purchase of goods, but also the transporter, M/s. Bharatiya Road Carriers Pvt. Ltd. was proved to be false since summons sent f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aid cases. 4.1 Heard both sides and perused the case record. 4.2 Observations of the Tribunal in Paras 5.2 and 5.3 of the Order of Tribunal passed on 2-6-2008, as submitted by the ld. JDR, remained un-controverted by the Appellants today and no cogent or credible evidence could be brought to the light of the day in the course of hearing for appreciation of prima facie case of Appellants. For convenience of reading, two Paragraphs of the earlier order which are relevant are reproduced below : 5.2 We have noticed that the firm M/s. Mirage Enterprise is a proprietory concern of Shri Vijoy Kumar Bhutra in Appeal Case No. 278/07. Therefore, the firm and proprietor are dealt to be same Assessee. On close examination of material facts and e .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ommissioning of offence by first Appellant, the second Appellant was found to be instrumental. 5. Both the Appellants grievance that Order dated 2-6-08 of the Tribunal may be recalled, does not appeal nor stand to reason for such recourse in view of fair and patient hearing granted to them today. They were specifically asked to bring notice of Tribunal as to what extent the observations in Paras 5.2 and 5.3 of the order dated 2-6-08, calls for reconsideration and modification thereof, resorting to recalling of that Order. Added to this, the appellants failed to produce any evidence for their pleading that the notice of hearing was not sent to them nor that was received by them. Therefore, in absence of any evidence led, ld. JDR s submis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates