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

2013 (8) TMI 608

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uck owners statement confirming transport of the goods, their claim cannot be accepted as the quantity mentioned in the invoices was much more the load which the vehicle can legally carry. Stay Application - Prima-facie the assesse cannot make out the case for total waiver – 1.5lakhs were ordered to be submitted as pre-deposit – upon such submission rest of the duty to be stayed till the disposal of the case - Stay granted. - Appeal Nos. 57992 to 57997 of 2013 - SM - - - Dated:- 12-7-2013 - Shri Rakesh Kumar, J. For the Appellant: Ms. Seema Jain, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri S.K. Panda, DR ORDER Per Rakesh Kumar The facts leading to these appeals and stay applications are in brief as under: 1.1 The main ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion covered under the invoices, the department thereafter conducted enquiry with the transporters whose vehicles are mentioned in the invoices. Except for the owner of the vehicle HR38F3612 and HR55 5022 who have stated that they have not transported the goods of M/s Jagruti Resins (P) Ltd., in all other cases, the owners of the vehicles [No. HR 55-0076 (Mahendra Singh Yadav), HR 55 5287 (Sh. R. Rana) and HR 55 7767 (Sh. Jile Singh)] have claimed that they have transported the goods of M/s Jagruti Resins (P) Ltd. However, the department doubts their claim on various grounds. In some cases the weight of the goods mentioned in the invoices was much more than the weight which the vehicles could legally carry. In other cases the vehicle owner s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Doshi of M/s Jagruti or Sh. Awadh Pratap Narayan Singh of M/s Shree Sai International from which it can be concluded that they have issued bogus invoices; that both the registered dealer have clearly stated that the goods covered under the invoices were supplied to M/s Dhiman Engineering Corporation; that there is nothing in the statement of Haripal Dhiman of M/s Dhiman Engineering from which adverse conclusion can be drawn; that except for owners of the two vehicles HR55-5022 and HR38F 3612, who stated that they have not transported the goods of M/s Jagruti Resins (P) Ltd., owners of other vehicles have confirmed having transported the goods; that the department s case is based mainly on the discrepancies in the records maintained by the D .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Appeals) in the impugned order, pointed out to Commissioner (Appeals) s findings in para 26(i) to (iii) of the impugned order wherein it has been observed that the evidence indicated that transport documents have been fabricated by M/s Jagruti Resins (P) Ltd., to show that the transportation of the goods through M/s Sanjay Transport Co. Besides this, he also pointed out that the owners of two vehicle Nos. HR55 5022 and HR38F 3612 have clearly stated that they have never transported the goods of M/s Jagruti. He therefore pleaded that the above evidence indicates that the transactions of M/s Jagruti Resins (P) Ltd. and M/s Shree Sai International with M/s Dhiman Engineering Corporation was bogus. He therefore pleaded that this is not a case f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tatement confirming transport of the goods, their claim cannot be accepted as the quantity mentioned in the invoices is much more the load which the vehicle can legally carry. I am of the prima-facie view that the evidence in support of both the grounds for alleging that there is no supply of goods by the registered dealers is doubtful, requires in depth examination. Keeping in view overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for total waiver so far as the main appellant M/s Dhiman Engineering Corporation are concerned. Accordingly, I direct the appellant M/s Dhiman Engineering Co. to deposit an amount of Rs.1.50 lakhs within a period of four weeks from the date of this order. On deposit of this .....

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