9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 942X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the basis of assumptions and presumptions that the same might have been passed on by adding to the cost - In the absence of any rebuttal by the Revenue and in the absence of any evidence to show that this amount was collected and in the presence of positive evidence produced by the appellant, the appellant has a valid claim for refund - As far as the payment of GSIL is concerned, the appellant was a subsidiary of GSIL and now both have become one company and on the ground that amount was paid by GSIL and not by the appellant, refund cannot be denied – Decided in favour of Assessee. - E/1025/2012-SM - Final Order No. 26738/2013 - Dated:- 11-10-2013 - SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, J. For the Appellant: Mr. V. J SANKARAM, ADVOCATE For th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd to any other person, is not acceptable, for the following reasons: (i) As per the Chartered Accountant s certificate and extracts of ledger of accounts of the respondents and that of M/s. Goldstond Infratech Limited. (GSIL) submitted by the respondents, it is abundantly clear that the subject matter was paid by GSIL on behalf of the respondents. (ii) In the Ledger Account for the period 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007, it was categorically mentioned that GSIL had issued a cheque No.697900 on 12.5.2006 towards PLS payment for despatches (appeal deposit) paid on behalf of the respondents. A corresponding entry is also figuring in the ledger account of GSIL. (iii) Even in the certificate dt. 30.11.2011 of the Chartered Accountant (submitted dur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period before amalgamation and prior to 2010-11. The contention of the respondents that the said amount of Rs. 2 lakhs forms a part of the loans and advances under the head balance with Government departments in the Balance Sheet of GSIL as at 31.3.2011 has not been substantiated. I find that the amount of Rs.1,99,46,639/- has been shown as the balance with Government departments as on 31.3.2011. But the respondents had not furnished any documents to prove that the said amount of Rs.1,99,46,639/- is inclusive of the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- claimed as refund. (vii) The possibility of treating the said amount of Rs.2 lakhs paid by GSIL during May 2006 as an expenditure and had passed on indirectly by loading it in the value of the goods/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of dispute relating to classification which was ultimately decided in favour of the appellant and it is not the case of the Revenue at all that higher amount of duty was collected from the customers during the relevant period on invoices. Once an appellant/assessee produces the documentary evidence to show that the amount is treated as receivables and not collected from the customers and further it was shown as receivables, it becomes a rebuttable evidence and Revenue has to make some efforts to rebut this and the refund cannot be denied on the basis of assumptions and presumptions that the same might have been passed on by adding to the cost. In the absence of any rebuttal by the Revenue and in the absence of any evidence to show that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
