9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oulds were removed by the assessee? - Held that: - The Adjudicating Authority relied upon the invoices to hold that the moulds had not been removed. The invoices merely evidence a sale. They do not evidence the movement of the goods in respect whereof, they are raised - We will presume that absent anything else an invoice prima facie indicates the delivery of possession of the goods sold. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asons mentioned in the application, the application is allowed and the delay of 121 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. CM-26977-CII-2016 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is allowed and the delay of 13 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM-26976-CII-2016 Application is allowed as prayed for. Main Case This is an appeal against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs? 2. In our view, a substantial question of law does not arise in this appeal. It is purely a question of appreciation of facts. The issue is whether moulds for the manufacture of automobile parts remained with the respondent/assessee or whether they were removed from the assessee s premises and transferred to the purchasers thereof. The assessee s case is that it manufactures automobile par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r not? 5. The Adjudicating Authority relied upon the invoices to hold that the moulds had not been removed. The invoices merely evidence a sale. They do not evidence the movement of the goods in respect whereof, they are raised. Delivery challans would indicate the removal of the goods from out of the premises of the seller and to the destination indicated therein. 6. We will presume that ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
