2003 (1) TMI 727

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as the Tribunal) in Second Appeal No. 825 of 1991 (1985-86) penalty. 2. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee opposite party is a transporter, engaged in the business of transporting the goods of different parties/persons from one place to another against freight. It appears that one M/s Khadi Mandir, Bikaner, Rajasthan purchased certain goods from M/s Swastic Saw Mills, Sagar (M.P.). The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s Tax Agra vide order dated 13-3-1990. Feeling aggrieved thereby the opposite party preferred second appeal before the Tribunal who by the impugned order has allowed the appeal and deleted the penalty. 4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the revisionist. Inspite of the affidavit of service having been filed, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party. 5. The learned c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er Section 28-B is reputable as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sodhi Transport Company vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 1986 UPTC-721. The Tribunal has recorded the finding that the goods in question has been delivered to the purchasing party at Bikaner in the State of Rajasthan. Thus, the presumption under Section 28-B has been rebutted. In this view of the matter, n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X