9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there was an advance purchase order does not enhance the case of the appellant, the purchase order was not accompanying the goods. Moreover, in case the position had been so, the invoice issued by the seller would have at least mentioned that the goods to be delivered to the purchaser at Dera Bassi whereas the invoice was issued in the name of the appellant at Mumbai. The destination as per the GR was different than stated in the invoice. Even in the declaration filed at Himachal barrier, the name of the consignee given was as appellant. It would be pertinent to note that even after detention of goods, no bill/invoice issued by the appellant in favour of the purchaser was produced. It was only first time before the Tribunal that one in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted at ICC and therefore cannot remain unaccounted in the books of accounts? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in upholding the penalty U/s 51(7) when the goods in question were voluntarily reported on its entry into the State of Punjab at ICC and were also reported at Himachal Pradesh tax barrier while making exist from Himachal Pradesh ruling out any possibility of keeping the transactions out of books? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in upholding the penalty U/s 51(7) where the goods in question i.e. Pressure cookers were not meant for trade as the purchasing dealer was a pharmaceutical company which is not engaged in the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ressure cookers were to be unloaded at Dera Bassi. No document issued by M/s Anjali Kitchen Wares Pvt. Ltd. in favour of dealer of Dera Bassi was produced either at the time of checking or during penalty proceedings. Penalty of ₹ 2,40,124/- was imposed under Section 51(7)(b) read with Section 51(12) of the Act. Aggrieved of the order, appeal was filed which was dismissed on 30.1.2013. Further appeal filed before the Tribunal met with the same fate on 26.8.2016. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that a purchase order was received from M/s Alkem Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai (hereinafter described as 'purchaser') for supply of 1200 pieces of five litres pressure cookers. The cookers were purchased from the seller and these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not accompanying the goods. Moreover, in case the position had been so, the invoice issued by the seller would have at least mentioned that the goods to be delivered to the purchaser at Dera Bassi whereas the invoice was issued in the name of the appellant at Mumbai. The destination as per the GR was different than stated in the invoice. Even in the declaration filed at Himachal barrier, the name of the consignee given was as appellant. It would be pertinent to note that even after detention of goods, no bill/invoice issued by the appellant in favour of the purchaser was produced. It was only first time before the Tribunal that one invoice was produced. The goods were not specific goods for purchase but were general pressure cookers. The f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
