9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , by proposing the following two identically worded questions, stated to be substantial questions of law: "[A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in directing to adopt GP @ 20% as against GP of 40% adopted by the Assessing Officer on the unaccounted sales? [B] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in ignoring the fact that assessee had failed to controvert the Assessing Officer's stand that part of the expenses pertaining to Suppressed Sales had already been claimed in regular books of accounts as well as the fact that assessee's average gross profit rate on accounted sales itself stood at 24.17% i.e. higher than the gross profit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declaring actual designs and sizes of the tiles manufactured and cleared by them. MRPs with effect from 01.04.2008 were almost the same as that increased with effect from 24.02.2008. According to the appellant, it is a fact that the assessee company was manufacturing tiles of different sizes and each size of tiles had different colours and designs which were sold at different rates. However, the assessee was suppressing designs of tiles in their Central Excise invoices. The assessee was declaring the same MRP for a particular size/grade of the tiles irrespective of the designs of the tiles. That the substantial increase in MRP with effect from 01.04.2008 further reveals that prior to 01.04.2008, the assessee company was evading duty of exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t he had received cash on suppression of sales and such amount was used for the purpose of making cash payment for various expenses associated with the manufacturing and over activities. The DGCEI had accepted the fact that not only was the MRP being reduced for the purpose of avoiding payment of excise duty, but also complete expenses/costs with reference to the purchase of raw materials and other incidental manufacturing expenses had been correspondingly shown at a lesser amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon his own order in the case of M/s Santro Tiles Ltd. for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 where the addition was confirmed not on the basis of gross profit but on the basis of net profit. Against the order of Commissioner ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arding partial expenses on suppressed sales already claimed by the assessee in its regular books of accounts, remain uncontroverted, the Appellate Tribunal ought to have adopted a much higher gross profit rate than 20% adopted by it and 24% reported in its regular books of accounts. These facts have not been considered by the Appellate Tribunal while deciding revenue's appeal by adopting gross profit rate at 20% of the suppressed sales and hence, the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is perverse to that extent. 8. From the facts noted hereinabove, it is apparent that it is an undisputed fact that the assessee had suppressed sales and had also suppressed the expenses. The Assessing Officer, therefore, rejected the books of accounts of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
