1992 (9) TMI 333

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... -79. 2.. Before the appellate authority the assessee had raised two points: (1) that the prawns which had been cleaned, frozen and packed for export could not be regarded as a different kind of commercial commodity from prawns got fresh from the sea and purchased from the local fishermen, and therefore, the exemption under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with proviso to sec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l Sales Tax Act to the assessee. So far as the addition towards unaccounted loss is concerned, the appellate authority held against the assessee against which the assessee went in appeal before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Main Bench, Madras. The Tribunal noticed that for the assessment year 1977-78 the unaccounted loss claimed was to the tune of 531 kilograms of prawns out of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e years 1977-78 and 1978-79 the loss of Rs. 1,23,951 and Rs. 1,23,775 respectively is only marginal and the Tribunal rightly granted the benefit to the assessee in respect of those additions. 4. It is relevant to mention that the Revenue had not filed any enhancement petitions within the prescribed time before the Tribunal against the finding of the appellate authority relating to the grant of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X