9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were effected in favour of three parties, with no appropriation definitely made on the bulk quantity imported, we do not find any justifiable ground to accept the plea of the assessee - Following decision of State of Tamil Nadu V. Kawarlal and co. [2011 (9) TMI 519 - Madras High Court] - Decided against assessee. - Tax Case (Revision) Nos.23 to 28 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 19-6-2013 - Chitra Venkataraman And K. B. K. Vasuki,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. V. Sundareswaran For the Respondent : Mr. V. Haribabu, AGP (T) ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Chitra Venkataraman,J.) The above Tax Case (Revisions), filed by the assesee as against the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to the assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egards Invoice No.4, on a turnover of ₹ 3,10,000/-, the assessee raised sale bills for 17,000 MT of HDPE Marlex TR 144 from Singapore in favour of Tvl.Sivasakthi Polymers, Karaikal. They had furnished a bill of entry for clearance of goods for 8,500 MT and there was no bill of entry filed for the balance goods. On verification of two bills of entry gathered from Customs Department, each 8,500 MT, it was found that the assessee had cleared the goods; however, the xerox copy of the triplicate copy of bill of entry filed to the Department revealed that they had interpolated the name of the ultimate buyer and thus there was a false claim. 4. Invoice No.8, on a turnover of ₹ 3,10,000/-, related to an import of 17,000 MT HDPE Marlo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be variation in the entries between the original bill of entry and the triplicate copy of bill of entry (xerox copy) filed before the Department for claiming exemption. Thus, holding that the assessee had not proved that the high sea sales was effected in the manner known to law, the claim was rejected. While rejecting the claim, penalty was also levied. For the other assessment years also, viz., 1993-94, 1992-93, 1994-95, 1991-92 and 1992-93, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved by the orders of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeals before the First Appellate Authority, who, however, agreed with the assessee and allowed the appeals. The First Appellate Authority pointed out that the bill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entry filed before the Customs Department showed that the assessee had cleared the goods. Thus, on a scrutiny of the Bills of entry filed before the Customs Department, it was found that there was no third party reference, who was stated to have purchased the goods on high seas; that interpolations were found in the third part of the bill of entry filed before the Revenue. The Tribunal held that the assessee had not substantiated that the goods were sold when they were on high seas. The Tribunal also pointed out that after the clearance of goods, the assessee had also got the bill of lading from the Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. Thus, when the continuity of import was broken, there could be no claim as high sea sales. While rejecting the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
