9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ineligible for grant of benefits conferred by Section 4-A of the 1948 Act. The dispute itself relates to the eligibility of the assessee to be treated as a new unit which had been set up and established with the aid of machinery which was new and had not been used in any manner in any other industrial establishment. It appears from the record that during the course of consideration of the claim of the revisionist a detailed inquiry was undertaken by the Division Level Committee with respect to three items or machinery which are stated to have been sourced by the revisionist from the State of Maharashtra. Ultimately the claim of the revisionist for being accorded benefits under Section 4A came to be rejected. A review application preferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the State of U.P. The Tribunal also took into consideration the report submitted by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Officer dated 22 September 1988 in which it had come to be recorded that from inquiries made from the alleged supplier of Maharashtra, it was found that he had not supplied any machinery to the revisionist and that he was engaged only in job work. Insofar as the second alleged supplier was concerned, it was found that his books of account had been seized by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and that the proprietor was in Delhi. Noting that the onus to prove that the machinery in question was of the assessee and who was obliged to prove the same, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the bills and invoices which were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as well as the demand drafts pursuant to which payments were effected. This Court, however, takes note of the fact that this communication is dated 19 February 2007 and therefore forms material which has come on record subsequent to the passing of the order of the Tribunal on 5 April 2006. Apart from the said letter, the learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the Department has not been able to obtain any fresh evidence in the course of its inquiry which was undertaken pursuant to the directions of this Court. Referring to the conclusive character of the findings recorded in the said report, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the rejection of its claim for grant of an eligibility certificate is liable to be re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
