9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be done either by handing over the Bill of Lading itself to the customers before the goods pass the customs barrier of India. However, having examined the documents available in the Intelligence Report, the Tribunal has concluded that the necessary documents were available only to the extent of the turnover of Rs.1,65,32,500/- and the learned Advocate had not filed the documentary evidence in respect of the remaining portion of the turnover. In RECKITT COLMAN OF INDIA LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [ 1996 (10) TMI 100 - SUPREME COURT] , the Apex Court has held that it is beyond the competence of the Tribunal to make out a case in favour of the Revenue, which the Revenue had never canvassed and which the appellants had never b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocumentary evidence? OR Whether Tribunal was right in disallowing the exemption under Section 5(2) of the CST Act to the extent of Rs.16,51,67,363/-, which represented high sea sales despite assessee having tendered evidence before the authorities as regards said sales, which had been accepted by said authorities. 2. Heard Shri. T. Suryanarayana, learned Senior Advocate for the assessee and Shri. Jeevan J.Neeralgi, learned AGA for the Revenue. 3. Shri. Suryanarayana submitted that this Court may consider the first question along with a point as to whether the Tribunal could exceed its jurisdiction in considering the point which was not for consideration before the Tribunal? 4. Brief facts of the case are, assessee impor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that the KAT has exceeded its jurisdiction in holding a roving enquiry by considering irrelevant material in limiting the relief. 7. Shri. Jeevan Neeralgi, learned AGA for the Revenue, adverting to para 26 of the impugned order submitted that the agreement was not signed by the proper person overseas. Therefore, the KAT having considered the material on record, has rightly limited the relief. 8. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 9. At the outset, we may record that the KAT has noted in para 22 of the impugned order that the exemption was denied on the premise that Bill of lading was not endorsed by the assessee. Further, it is held in para 31 that the settled position of law is, the Bill of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not the only way of transfer of title and it can also be done by even handing over the Bill of Lading to the customers. Further, on consideration of the Intelligence Report, KAT has satisfied itself that documents were available in respect of turnover of Rs.1,65,32,500/-. Denial of the exemption in respect of turnover of Rs.16,51,67,363/- being the remaining portion of the turnover was not the subject matter for consideration before the KAT. In view of the settled position of law, the order passed by the KAT is perverse and unsustainable in law. 14. In view of the above, the following: ORDER (a) Appeal is allowed. (2) The orders dated 28.03.2014 and 18.09.2014 in DCCT (Audit)-2.3 DVO-02 passed by the Assessing Officer, ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
