9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "(i) Whether the Appellate Tribunal misdirected itself and thereby fell into an allowing the appeal of the State by overlooking the fact that in CTSA.Nos.230-233 of 1998 dated 11.01.1999 in the case of petitioner themselves for the assessment years 1992-93 to 1994-95 the Appeal was allowed in its favour on identical set of facts. (ii) Whether the Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate the factual finding given by the Assessing Officer that the freight charges were shown separately in the invoices. (iii) Whether the Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that the inability of the petitioner to produce the written agreement of year 1996-97 in 2015 after the lapse of 15 years shall not mitigate against the bonafide claim of deduction f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich ultimately led to the revision of assessment vide order dated 12.10.1998. Challenging the same, the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority after considering the factual position and referring to the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in respect of the assessee's own case for the assessment years 1992-1993, 1995-96 allowed the appeal. 6. The Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by the impugned order has allowed the appeal. Before the impugned order was passed, the Tribunal allowed the appeal exparte without hearing the assessee and on receipt of the order passed by the Tribunal, the assessee filed Miscellaneous Petition to restore the appeal filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecified therein, be deducted from the total turnover of a dealer; a).... b).... c)all amounts falling under the following three heads when specified and charged for by the dealer separately, without including them in the price of the goods sold:- (i) freight (ii) [xxx] Omitted by G.O.P.No.2022 Revenue dated 18th November 1967; (iii) charges for delivery; ......" 10. In terms of the above Rule, freight and charges for delivery are not to be included in the total turnover rather to be deducted from the total turnover. Therefore, we are of the view that the Revenue is not right in contending that the assessee has to first include the same in the total turnover and then claim exemption. The expression used in Rule 6 is "deducted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
