9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 to 4. 2. The writ petition has been filed by the dealer registered on the file of the third respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short, the Act) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 06.10.2003 allowing the appeal filed by the Revenue and setting aside the order passed by the second respondent in A.P.No.300 of 1999 dated 28.2.2001. 3. The assessee is a dealer in camphor and for the assessment year under consideration namely 1992-93, they were assessed on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 1,38,31,366/- and Rs. 30,94,502/- respectively. Subsequently, scrutiny of the assessment was made, in which, the Assessing Officer found that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Roadlines in Truck No.TMA 6366 and TN 28 X 7515 on 24.12.92 to Sulur with consignment note Nos.381 and 382 dated 24.12.92; 7. Ledger copy of Sulur Tea Depot p.154 indicating the transactions and the entries duly verified and signed by the Assessing Officer." 5. The First Appellate Authority verified those documents and the Departmental Representative also verified the documents and the First Appellate Authority recorded in his order dated the documents produced by the petitioner were verified by the Departmental Representative and found to be in order. Thus, on appreciating the documents placed before it, the First Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner. 6. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the First Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g endorsement was made even before the goods crossed the Customs Station, the sale thus concluded therein, on the mere contention of the Assessing Officer that the Bill of Entry had the assessee's name and the customs duty was paid only on the imported value and not on the high seas value, were without any merit. 10. Given the fact that the Bill of Lading is the document of title and admittedly it carried the name of the ultimate buyer and that there was no denial of the fact that the assessee had transferred the goods before it crossed the Customs Station, rightly the said authority granted relief in favour of the assessee. As rightly pointed out, the only ground on which the claim was rejected was the difference in the name found in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after the payment of required customs duty. "Importer" is defined under Section 2(26), which reads as follows: "2(26) "Importer", in relation to any goods at any time between their importation and the time when they are cleared for home consumption, includes any owner or any person holding himself out to be the importer" 12. In the light of the said definition and read in the background of Sections 46 and 47 of the Customs Act, we do not think that the Revenue can successfully canvass its case based on entries in the Bill of Entry. In the absence of any details as to whether the said entries relate to the one in the Bill of Entry for home consumption or any Bill of Entry for warehousing, the Revenue's revision merits to be dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
