TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 963X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore us would indicate the mandatory requirement of enclosing the concerned form VAT-505 was not there along with the goods so also the excise documents were absent along with the goods. Though excise gate pass was available, but that was not enough to come to the conclusion that it was return of rejected goods and not an inter-State sale. Appeal rejected - 87 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 27-9-2010 - MANJULA CHELLUR AND GOVINDARAJULU K., JJ. The judgment of the court was delivered by MRS. MANJULA CHELLUR J. The undisputed facts pertaining to this appeal are as under: On September 26, 2005 goods vehicle bearing No. MH 09 Q 6137 carrying the goods under invoices raised by the present appellant in favour of one Sri Enterprises, Bomba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to them by Sri Enterprises, Bombay, and they have returned the said goods and even the endorsement of the concerned officer of Excise Department would indicate that on August 31, 2005 an endorsement was made by the officer noting the rejection of the goods. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on the appeal by the present appellant held that the documents accompanying goods were sent to hold that the vehicle was carrying the rejected goods and it was not an outrate sale from the present appellant to Sri Enterprises. The revisional authority, on the suo motu show-cause notice issued, found the order of the appellate authority to be improper, illegal and prejudicial to the interest of Government revenue, for the reasons, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, while invoking the provisions of section 64(1) of the Act, it is hereby proposed to set aside the appeal order and to restore the penalty order passed under section 53(2) of the KVAT Act, 2003. However, before doing so, you are hereby provided with an opportunity to show cause against the said proposal adducing evidences if any, either in person or through your legally authorized representative or to file your written objections or both before the undersigned within ten days from the date of service of this notice, or failing which it is proposed why the order of appellate authority should not be set aside and the penalty order of CTO (TRCP) (Outward) to be upheld. After hearing the authorised person representing the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e required form had to accompany the goods. Apparently, there was no such form along with the goods. According to the appellant, the excise pass was sent to the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes with details of materials rejected forwarding the copies of the invoices to the concerned officer, but they were not taken into consideration. On September 26, 2005 the appellant after receiving the notice from the check-post demanding penalty of Rs. 74,239, after discussion with the Deputy Commissioner, enclosed DD for Rs. 49,493 towards two times penalty and sought for release of the documents immediately. They did not even say that the said payment was paid under protest. However, the appellate authority while disposing of the appeal file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
