9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e purpose of evasion of excise duty and accordingly demand the duty short levied as well as impose penalties on them – Held that allegation was not correct and set aside X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant is accessory for tax evasion. This finding is based on the fact that some of the share holders of the second appellant are related to the Directors of first appellant. 4. The submission of the ld. Counsel for the appellants is that the finding is the result of gross mis-understanding of facts. It is being pointed out that the first appellant is a large manufacturer of yarn and only a smal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant, and in the absence of the finding that those sale prices are higher than the sale prices to the first appellant, the finding does not have any factual basis at all. The ld. Counsel would also highlight that by buying back only a small portion of the yarn, the first appellant would not be able to recover the loss resulting from the undervalued sale of yarn to the second appellant. 5. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r parties. Secondly M/s. Vanaik Spinning Mills Ltd. was selling majority of its produce to parties other than the first appellant. There is no allegation that those sale prices were higher than the sale price to the first appellant. It also does not stand to reason that an assessee would sell bulk of its produce at undervalued prices to a party so as to benefit from undervalued return of about 40% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
