9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly indicate that the appellant sought to transport goods from Belgaum to Mumbai and the consignee of the goods was M/s. Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited, Gurgoan. In the light of the documents produced by the appellant himself which clearly indicate the names of the consignor and consignee are two Indian companies. - transaction is within the country. Therefore, the argument on behalf of the appellant that the goods were being exported directly by the consignor cannot be countenanced. - Additional Commissioner has rightly recorded the finding of Appellate Authority and restored the penalty imposed in original proceedings. No exception can be taken to the findings recorded and conclusions arrived at by the Additional Commissioner. - De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dingly set aside the same and penalty order under Section 53 (12) of the Act was restored whereby the penalty of ₹ 75,955/- came to be confirmed. In these circumstances, the appellant has preferred this appeal raising the following question of law: Whether the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone I, Bangalore/the third respondent herein was right in invoking the provisions of Section 64(1) of the KVAT Act and set aside the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeal), Belgaum/the second respondent herein? 3. While admitting this appeal, this Court has framed the following question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant the Addl. Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce the goods in question were meant for export and it was clearly spelt out in the invoice as such, the respondent-authorities at the check-post were not justified in imposing the penalty so also in the SMR proceedings. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate supports the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 7. The delivery note clearly indicates the name of the consignor as the appellant and the consignee as Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited, Gurgoan, Haryana. The invoice dated 07.03.2006 also shows the name of Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited, Gurgaon, Haryana. Thus, the invoice is raised in the name of Company situated in India. However, in one of the columns it is mentioned that export is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment or directing a fresh assessment. 10. Above provision clothes the Additional Commissioner with power to call for and examine the record of any order passed or proceedings recorded under this Act, and if he so considers that such an order requires any interference, the same may be appropriately dealt with. 11. Exercising the suo moto review powers, the Additional Commissioner has rightly recorded the finding of Appellate Authority and restored the penalty imposed in original proceedings. No exception can be taken to the findings recorded and conclusions arrived at by the Additional Commissioner. 12. In the circum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
