9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (1) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tional evidence produced before it by the Revenue at the time of arguments without giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee to produce rebutting evidence ? (iv) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there has been no violation of natural justice, even when the authorities have used against the assessee, evidences given by witnesses and materials taken from records which were not made available to the assessee ? (v) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in relying on the evidence tendered by Elgi Equipments Ltd., without getting its authenticity tested by cross-examination and whether it was justified in law in not taking into account the documents on record which prove the unreliability of the case of Elgi Equipments Ltd ? (vi) Whether, on the facts and circumstances the mere showing of certain correspondences and documents to the chief executive at the time of his examination on February 17, 1988, amounted to reasonable opportunity and is not the finding of the Tribunal that there has been no violation of natural justice consequently vitiated in law ?" The assessee is a public limited company (Premier Breweries Limited) engaged in the manufacture and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the new machine was manufactured at our plant and the machine was despatched after raising Rs. 9,50,251 in a single invoice." It is also stated that Elgi Equipments Limited supplied a new machine on July 30, 1985, to the assessee. The Assessing Officer carried out an inspection of the factory premises and found that new equipment was cleared on July 30, 1985, at 10.45 p. m. under a gate pass issued by the Central Excise Department. Lorry weigh bridge receipts, despatch charges receipt were also found out to show that the unit was despatched on July 30, 1985. Evidence was collected from the labour contractor that from 1985 onwards labour charges were incurred for dismantling the old plant and for erection work of the new plant. Considering all these facts, the Assessing Officer concluded that no repairing work was carried out during 1984 as alleged and disallowed the claim of the assessee of Rs. 9,98,200 and also found that the new Pasteuriser was purchased under an invoice dated July 30, 1985, for the same amount. In the appeal, the assessee contended that the evidence was collected behind his back as he was not given copies of the statement of witnesses, etc., and principles of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee without disclosing it to him can be considered first. Admittedly, the assessee did not ask for cross-examining or summoning any person before the Assessing Officer. All the evidence put forward by the assessee was considered by the Assessing Officer. Entire contentions raised by the assessee were considered by the Assessing Officer. The assessee was asked to reconcile the difference in the trade balance with Elgi Equipments Limited and the number of bills based on which the charges were raised. The assessee was also asked to explain regarding the cost of machinery and why the cost of such machinery was put as revenue expenditure. The explanation offered by the assessee was considered by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal considered the contention that the Assessing Officer has not relied on materials behind the back of the assessee and found as follows: "The material Collected was all placed before the assessee and the same was material for the enquiry." The Tribunal further held as follows: "We would like to state that in the deposition made by Mr. Amritalingam before the Assessing Officer he had stated only that which was conveyed to the Assessing Officer in the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was carried out in support of the contentions, the Tribunal referred to the letter dated June 10, 1988 of Elgi Equipments Limited filed in the course of penalty proceedings. With regard to the letter, according to the Tribunal : ".....once again clarified that the plant was completed and cleared from the central excise, despatched to Premier Breweries Ltd., supported by a single sale Bill No. 1183. It was also alleged in the letter that the assessee wanted this party to make 16 bills to match exactly with the amount raised in their invoice. Elgi Equipments Ltd., it was claimed, was closely advised and guided by the assessee in preparing 'the substitute sixteen bills' and their accounts manager even specified the wordings to be incorporated in the sixteen bills. Though this letter was received by the Assessing Officer after the completion of the assessment its relevance cannot be lost sight of." But the finding was arrived at by the Tribunal on other materials itself. The Tribunal also pointed out that : "We may further point out that the gate passes showing transportation of material were with the assessee and it is an admitted fact that along with the challans there was a copy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
