9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (2) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the quantum may have been reduced, is justified. The penalty has been levied under s. 10-A read with s. 10(D), Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Sub-clause (d) penalties any action of purchasing goods for purposes specified in s. 8(3) (b) and falling without reasonable excuse to make use of the goods for the said purpose. s. (3)(b) refers to goods purchased as being intended for use in the manufacture of goods for sale. This is the relevant cause with which we are concerned. The lower authorities in the present case appear to have found that the use of the machinery in question purchased by the appellant was in proportion to the use of the resale, 75% to 25%. In other words, according to the lower authorities, the use of the machinery in questi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant had to depend of actual user. It was only after obtaining the material from them that the present appellant could embark on manufacture. In this state of affairs, the appellant could certainly not afford to keep his machine idle, merely because he himself was not in a position to obtain the raw material which was issued to actual users. He had therefore no alternative but to accept orders from others, obtain raw materials from the actual users and to execute the orders by way of job work. It is on this account that in the years in question the proportion of the use of the machinery for doing the job work of others has exceeded the use for purposes of manufacture of good for sale. Further, he contends that after the policy was relaxed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as follows:- " In the case of Automatic Engineering Works the point for decision before the Special Bench was whether the assessee who was a manufacturer of goods would be entitled for a full set off of the tax paid by him on the machinery if part of the machinery was used in job work. This Tribunal held in the affirmative. The basic requirement for the grant of set off under R. 41-A is that the machinery must be used in the manufacturer of goods for sale. That is precisely the term of recital of certificate in form C. We, therefore, hold that the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in Automatic Engineering Works, will apply with full force to the facts of the present case." 5. The above said reasoning makes it clear that so far as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsideration of the view in the previous rulings of the Tribunal as outlined above So long as this is not done, there is no option but to follow the said ruling. 8. The next limb of argument is as stated above, as to reasonable case. Here Shri Khetani has demonstrated by filing a compilation the following facts. In the years in question 1967-68, the net sales were Rs. 1,06,149,65. The labour charges or receipts on account of job work were Rs. 4,31,405. However out of this, as demonstrated in the compilation, in respect of receipts of Rs. 2,00,666 these are not in regard to any job work done by the appellant himself. What was done was that the raw material obtained was entrusted to other concerns for labour works. Hence, he contends that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
