TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Appeal Nos. E/1063-1068/2006 - Stay Order Nos. 541-546/2006-SM(BR) - Dated:- 2-5-2006 - [Order] - These stay applications have been filed by the Revenue for staying the operation of the order of Commissioner (Appeals). It was argued for the Revenue that M/s. Tata Steels Ltd., Mandi Gobindgarh are a registered dealer and have a stock yard at Mandi Gobindgarh. M/s. Adhunik Steels Pvt. Ltd. ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mandi Gobindgarh stated that M/s. Adhunik Steels Pvt. Ltd. collected the material from TISCO which are brought and transported to Mandi Gobindgarh and maintenance of proper stock and safe custody of material was the responsibility of M/s. Adhunik Steels Pvt. Ltd. All the accounts were being maintained by M/s. Adhunik Steels Pvt. Ltd. TISCO Branch office at Ludhiana, after receiving the advance pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Lal Vinod Kumar in their respective statements during investigation, stated that M/s. Adhunik Steels Pvt. Ltd. arranged the vehicles for transportation of material from TISCO stock yard to their premises and freight was borne by them which was paid in cash and they never checked the vehicle number and goods and sales invoices were prepared from purchase invoices. During investigation, it was found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich were purchased by the dealer and the invoice issued to the respondents showing much lower price than the purchase price of the dealer. It was therefore, argued that one cannot sell the goods at a lower price than his purchase price. No material was received by the respondents from dealers and they have wrongly taken the credit. 3. On behalf of the respondents, M/s. Bhawani Shankar Castings, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be fake merely on the basis that the goods were shown to have been transported from the premises of TISCO stock yard to dealer on the vehicles which could not have carried the goods. If any action was required to be taken for recovery of duty, it should have been taken against the dealer who had s the goods. I do not find any justification for staying the operation of the order of the Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
