9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Act to ensure that there is no import made which is not disclosed in the books of account and later used; as in the present case in the manufacture and/or sale within the State. There is a lack of declaration of imported goods used in manufacture, the value of which is added on to the sale price of the final manufactured product; which is taxable. The production of documents, evidencing subsequent sale of the machinery, in which the goods imported were embedded, cannot necessarily dispel the suspicion of attempt to evade tax, since the sale occurred subsequent to the detection of offense. The presumption regarding the evasion for reason of non-declaration of goods persists and it is this offense which is sought to be penalised. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal have held that the defalcation if at all was a technical one not necessarily leading to any attempt to evade tax? - HELD THAT:- The sale of a manufactured product subsequent to the detection of an offense relating to a component in the final product, cannot efface the suspicion of evasion of tax. The defect cannot be said to be a mere technical one and raises a presumption of attempt to evade tax; which the assessee, on whom the burden is, failed to disprove or dispel in the adjudication. The only plea was that the defect was technical and the subsequent sale did suffer tax; which has been found to be grossly irrelevant and insufficient - Questions are answered against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue. Revision rejected. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the goods and the import was evidenced by the bill of entry as also the other documents executed before the Customs Authority? Whether Tribunal was correct in confirming the penalty when the assessee had produced sufficient documents to prove that the tax in fact was paid on sale of the goods manufactured; in which the imported goods was an essential component? and Ought not the Tribunal have held that the defalcation if at all was a technical one not necessarily leading to any attempt to evade tax ? 2. Admittedly the assessee had not declared the goods before the Commercial Taxes Department under Form 8F(A) as has been provided in Section 46(3) (e) which has been extracted in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... STC 448]. Therein an interstate transport, that too a sale in transit, was detained and the petitioner who had originally raised purchase order was sought to be levied with penalty. The consignee was the purchaser-in-transit, to whom the assessee, who originally raised the purchase order, had sold the goods in transit. The defect noticed was that the delivery note was not one prescribed under the Rules and therein the value of the goods was not shown. These were found to be defects of technical nature which does not necessarily result in a presumption of attempt of evasion of tax. The original purchaser had no tax liability since the goods were sold in transit and the transport was an interstate one which again put to peril any demand of ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en there could have been an attempt to evade tax if the offense was not detected. 7. The Tribunal has correctly found that without a declaration being made to the Commercial Taxes Department, the Department would not be aware of the import made. The assessee's contention that the goods were imported through a bill of entry which can easily be verified at the Customs authorities, cannot be relied on to set aside the penalty. If there was a detection of suppression of value of the imported goods and later the Commercial Taxes Department had taken action for that, on verification with the customs authority, only then evasion would have come out. There is also a possibility of the suppression not being detected at all when t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
