9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (3) TMI 372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0A read with section 10(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, for the contravention relating to the year 1973, was not barred by limitation? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Sales Tax Officer had requisite jurisdiction to impose such penalty even after the initiation and withdrawal of the suo motu revision proceedings by the Assistant Commissioner? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that breach of declarations in form C was committed by using the goods purchased in processing the goods of other parties which were meant for sale by those parties? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer was not satisfied with the reply given by the assessee and held the company guilty of the offence under section 10(d) of the Central Act and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,208 under section 10A of the Central Act. Against that order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner. He did not uphold the plea of the assessee that the assessee had not committed any breach in using hexine oil purchased against the declarations in form C for manufacturing goods on job work basis. He, however, reduced the penalty from Rs. 5,208 to Rs. 4,047. The assessee not satisfied with the order of the Assistant Commissioner, preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the assessee had raised four contentions. It was contende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be answered in favour of the assessee in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Assessing Authority-cumExcise and Taxation Officer v. East India Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1981] 48 STC 239, which has overruled the decision of this Court in Navsari Cotton Silk Mills Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [1976] 37 STC 140, which was relied upon by the Tribunal in rejecting the assessee's contention that it cannot be said to have committed any breach. He further submitted that if this question is answered in favour of the assessee, then it would not be necessary to answer questions Nos. 1, 2 and 4, because, if it is held that the assessee had not committed any breach of the declarations made in form C, then, obviously, the order imposing penalty will have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
