9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner, Mobile Wing, Chandigarh that both the said firms were fictitious and not genuine, disallowed the ITC against the purchases of paper worth 19,90,035/- and imposed penalties amounting to 79,602/- under Section 58 of the Act and 10,000/- under Section 60 of the Act. The appellant failed to challenge the verification report of the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Mobile Wing, Chandigarh. - no question of law much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal - Decided against assessee. - VATAP No. 40 of 2015 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 20-8-2015 - MR.AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. RAMENDRA JAIN, JJ. For The Appellant Mr. Kumar Vishav Aggarwal, Advocate AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Delay of 11 days in refil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mobile Wing, Chandigarh. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala who vide order dated 16.4.2009 (Annexure P-2) dismissed the same holding that the bill was not genuine and proper as required under Section 51(6)(a) of the Act. Still dissatisfied, the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 5.7.2010 (Annexure P-3) remanded the case to the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Jalandhar-I to reopen the assessment case for the year 2007-08 and to go through all the transactions of the purchases for which ITC was claimed, particularly regarding purchases of goods intercepted while being sent to Cuttack. In p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nshine Overseas of Amritsar. The said goods were dispatched to M/s Malhotra Book Depot of Cuttack. The Tribunal vide earlier order dated 5.7.2010 (Annexure P-3) had ordered for reopening of the assessment to examine the transactions relating to the purchase made by it for which ITC was claimed and particularly regarding the purchase of goods which were intercepted while being sent to Cuttack. The said order had become final as its validity was never assailed by the appellant. The ETO-cum-Designated Officer, Jalandhar-I relying upon the report of the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Mobile Wing, Chandigarh that both the said firms were fictitious and not genuine, disallowed the ITC against the purchases of paper worth 19,90,035/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
