9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion of law much less substantial arises for consideration in this appeal - Decided against assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Haryana involved. All the necessary documents were accompanying the goods but the same were not considered by the detaining officer. The AETC vide order dated December 20, 2007, annexure A1, levied tax and imposed penalty under the State Act. The appeal filed by the appellant against the order was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated April 29, 2010, annexure A2. Still not satisfied, the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated July 17, 2012, annexure A4, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence the present appeal by the appellant. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no opportunity of cross-examination of the driver was allowed and in that eventuality, no liability could be fastened merely on the basis of the statement of the driver of the vehicle. It was also submitted that it was inter-State sales and thus there was no attempt to evade tax within the State of Haryana and thus no penalty under section 31 of the Act could be levied. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in the appeal. 5. The Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner (AETC) vide order dated December 20, 2007, annex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods no longer remained in transit and sale of such goods made after taking the delivery cannot be treated as 'sale in transit'. Secondly the G. R. No. 15755 dated November 23, 2007 shows the movements of goods from Faridabad to Bhiwadi while the consignor of the goods is shown as M/s. Bharat Aluminum Co. Limited, Korba (CG) which is not correct as the above firm is situated at Korba and not at Faridabad. In view of the above circumstances it is quite clear that the goods were imported by you from Korba (CG), the delivery of which was duly taken by you at your business premises from vehicle No. HR-38N-8631. Thereafter the same goods were sold to M/s. Sant Aluminum Pvt. Limited, Bhiwadi vide bill No. 13 dated November 23, 2007 and G. R. No. 15755 dated November 23, 2007 in vehicle No. HR-47-8377 showing the transaction as a sale in transit instead of inter-State Sale. No declaration in form VAT D-3 inward or outward was accompanied with the documents. Heard at length. No documents or evidence produced except those stated in the written submission. Hence the documents produced with the transaction are not proper and genuine which contravenes the proviso of section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the documents. Secondly, the GR No. 15755 dated November 23, 2007 shows the movement of goods from Faridabad to Bhiwadi while the consignor of the goods is shown as M/s. Bharat Aluminum Company Limited, Korba (CG) which is not correct as the above firm is situated at Korba and not at Faridabad." 7. On further appeal by the appellant, the Tribunal vide order dated July 17, 2012, annexure A4, while dismissing the same recorded as under:- "We have heard submissions in detail from both sides and considered these and carefully gone through the documents/evidence placed on record. From the detention memo on record it is borne out that in detention memo the AETO (Enf), Mewat has stated that 'Detected carrying aluminum ingots from Faridabad to Bhiwadi (Raj) (ii) failed to produce the proof of goods tax. The goods detained under section 31(6) of the VAT Act, transaction needs verification' to which learned counsel had vehemently objected that under section 31(6) of the HVAT Act goods cannot be detained for verification of the transaction. To analyse this we have to go through the provisions of section 31(6) which reads 'if the checking officer has reasons to su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant to M/s. Sant Aluminum Pvt. Limited, Bhiwadi, (Raj) which was of no use as the other set of documents, i.e., invoice No. 13 and GR No. 15755 both dated November 23, 2007 were also with the consignment which showed movement of goods from Faridabad to Bhiwadi (Raj) issued by the appellant to M/s. Sant Aluminum Pvt. Limited, Bhiwadi (Raj). If truly it would have been a 'sale in transit' falling under section 6(2) of the CST Act as claimed by the appellant. There was no need of preparing the second set of documents, i.e., invoice and GR dated November 23, 2007 but the presence of this second set of documents confirmed that it was not a sale in transit falling under section 6(2) of the CST Act, as the appellant had taken the delivery of goods at Faridabad for which he was required to use VAT D3 (inward). Afterwards on November 23, 2007 by preparing second set of documents this transaction was being given colour of a sale in transit which was not like this. The driver-cum-person incharge of goods also stated the fact of loading the goods from the godown of appellant at Faridabad whose statement was recorded in writing and then its contents were confirmed by the Taxati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
