9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rious other reliefs were also sought for in the return. We are in this case concerned with the question whether the assessee is entitled to get claim of exemption on stock transfer for the amount of Rs. 75,77,525. The assessing authority disallowed the claim on the ground that the assessee had not produced proof for the transfer and movement of goods to the factory and evidence for crossing the check-posts. The assessee took up the matter in appeal and the claim was also rejected by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) stating that the assessee had not produced F form declaration to prove that the transactions were otherwise than by way of sale. The appellate authority placed reliance on the decision in Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to RG 24 register maintained under the Central Excise Rules and submitted that the register is the best evidence to prove the claim of stock transfer. Counsel also submitted that the assessee has also produced delivery notes which would support the case of the assessee that there was stock transfer. Counsel submitted, in any view of closed. The assessment year in question relates to 1999-2000 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The assessee filed its return claiming exemption on stock transfer for Rs. 77,75,219 out of which it was pointed out that, the turnover of Rs. 75,77,525 was stock transfer to the factory at Visakhapatnam. Various other reliefs were also sought for in the return. We are in this case concerned with the question whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have held that form F is mandatory to prove transfer in the light of the decision of this court in Vijayamohini Mills v. State of Kerala [1989] 75 STC 63 and also the decision of the apex court in Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [2004] 134 STC 473. Counsel submitted that the Tribunal ought to have allowed the appeal on the basis of the decision of the apex court in Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [2004] 134 STC 473. Counsel submitted that even in the absence of form F declaration the assessee produced other evidence to show that there was a stock transfer. Counsel referred to RG 24 register maintained under the Central Excise Rules and submitted that the register is the best ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds from State of Kerala to Visakhapatnam. Form RG 23A deals with stock account of inputs for use in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. This document as such would not show that there was movement of goods from Kerala to Visakhapatnam. This is a form prescribed under rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules framed in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 6, 12 and 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and maintained by the assessee itself. We are in this case concerned with the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. The petitioner has to comply with the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act and Rules framed thereunder and not the provisions of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
