9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.11.2012 and 25.11.2013, Annexures A.1 to A.3 respectively passed by the authorities, claiming following substantial questions of law:- "i) Whether penalty is justified where the documents covering the goods are proper and genuine and intention is bonafide? ii) Whether mere minor discrepancy is enough to impose penalty where all the provisions were properly followed? iii) Whether the rejected goods were properly accounted for in the books of account as per the provisions of law? iv) Whether mere saving/avoiding of unnecessary expenses of transportation and incidental charges in this recession is an offence and liable for imposition of penalty? v) Whether it was compulsory upon the appellant to firstly reload rejected goods from M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 786240/-. The said bill was covered with GR No.7429 dated 20.10.2009 of D.D. Khosla Transport Pvt. Limited. The goods were transported in vehicle No.PB 10 CH 1416 on the same date i.e. 20.10.2009. Later on, when the Managing Director of M/s Dolphin Rubber Limited checked the goods, he asked the concerned person that since the same were not as per their specification, they be rejected and convey the message to the selling dealer. Moreover, he further ordered that while returning the goods, a note must be mentioned on bill No. EVAT 91704 and issue a debit note for accounts purposes. When the appellant was making arrangement to bring the goods back, another order of supply of similar quality and quantity was received by the appellant from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exure A.2. Still not satisfied, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 25.11.2013, Annexure A.3, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence the instant appeal by the assessee. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the goods which were rejected by M/s Dolphin Rubber Limited, Hambran, Ludhiana and lying at its premises were sold and transported to M/s Oswal Enterprises, Basti Bawa Khel, Jalandhar. It was contended that in such circumstances, there was no attempt to evade tax. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the impugned orders. 7. A perusal of the orders passed by the authorities below shows that after considering the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, the quantity in both the bills is the same but the rates and amounts differ. According to the appellant-dealer, there is difference of 90 kg. in weight. To my mind, difference in weight to such an extent would have not occurred, even if the goods were weighed on two different weighing machines. It does not stand to the logic that the Store Incharge namely Uday Partap of M/s Dolphin Rubber Limited, Ludhiana had inadvertently or under some misconception recorded the note regarding rejection of goods. Uday Partap being an employee, it was not difficult for the appellant to procure his affidavit. It does not sound well that the store keeper of M/s DRL, Hambran, Ludhiana had recorded the note of rejection on Bill No.91705 due to oversight. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
