9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as issued by Surendra Steel Sales, Chandigarh and this parallel invoices had been prepared on the printed form. It was not disputed by the owner of the goods that bill No. 15105 dated 24.7.2012 was issued by Surendra Steel Sales, Zirakpur after the detention of the goods. The explanation furnished by the appellant-dealer was held to be not plausible. The finding of fact could not be shown to be perverse and the view taken by the authorities below was a possible view which cannot be faulted. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that any substantial question of law arises in this appeal - Decided against assessee. - VATAP No. 56 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 31-3-2014 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. JASPAL SINGH, JJ. Mr. Varun Katyal, Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act by the Barrier Authorities for verification of transaction. Respondent No.2 vide order dated 1.8.2012 (Annexure A-1) imposed the penalty of Rs. 1,70,900/- under Sections 51(7)(b) and 51(12) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before respondent No.1 who vide order dated 22.2.2013 (Annexure A-2) dismissed the appeal. Still dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Tribunal by way of an appeal. The Tribunal vide order dated 22.11.2013 (Annexure A-3) upheld the penalty and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 5. The Assessing Officer while imposing penalty of Rs. 1,70,900/- on the assessee had noticed as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held as under:- Sh. Harminder Singh, Advocate/Counsel for the appellant and Sh. Amit Singh, ETI, ICC, Zirakpur has appeared from the department with the record file on 22.02.2013. The learned counsel pointed out that this transaction is voluntarily disclosed at concerned ICC. Due to some oversight the pre-printed computerized stationary of Chandigarh branch was issued instead of the stationary of Zirakpur branch. The serial number of bill used is different for Chandigarh branch and Zirakpur branch and this bill was from the Serial Number used by Zirakpur branch only. As this transaction was voluntarily disclosed and there could be no attempt to evade tax, the ETI pointed out that there was an attempt to evade the tax. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n number of the selling person. (d) Full description of the goods. (e) The quantity of the goods. (f) The value of the goods per unit. (g) The total value. (h) Signature of proprietor or partner or direction or/authorized agent. As per the above mentioned Rule, a consecutive serial no. is to be printed by a mechanical or electronic process on the invoice. If it was so, how two parallel invoices could be issued bearing the same Sr. No. and date by Surendera Steel Sales. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Designated Officer, ICC, Zirakpur (Punjab) in his order dated 1.8.2012 has observed as under:- The goods were detained on the ground that these were not covered by proper and genuine documents as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Zirakpur (Punjab) and the other one was issued by Surendra Steel Sales, Chandigarh and this parallel invoices had been prepared on the printed form. It was not disputed by the owner of the goods that bill No. 15105 dated 24.7.2012 was issued by Surendra Steel Sales, Zirakpur after the detention of the goods. The explanation furnished by the appellant-dealer was held to be not plausible. The finding of fact could not be shown to be perverse and the view taken by the authorities below was a possible view which cannot be faulted. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that any substantial question of law arises in this appeal. 9. In view of the above, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
