TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee in favour of Vikram Enterprises was fictitious. It was further observed by the Tribunal that the said doubt was just a camouflage in order to pass incorrect order of penalty. The Tribunal on appreciation of material on record had deleted the penalty imposed by Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer. Learned State counsel was not able to demonstrate that the approach of the Tribunal was erroneous or perverse or that the findings recorded were based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, the view of the Tribunal is a plausible view and deletion of the aforesaid penalty could not be faulted. - Decided against the revenue - VATAP No. 18 of 2016 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 16-3-2016 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h goods meant for the purpose of business. During the course of checking under Section 51(2) of the Act, the Excise and Taxation Officer, Mobile Wing, Bathinda, intercepted vehicle bearing registration No. HR-57-4097 loaded with TMT Bar from Mandi Gobindgarh to Jalalabad. On asking, the driver of the said vehicle had produced the following documents before the Detaining Officer:- (i) Invoice No. 19 dated 7.5.2013 issued by M/s Om Shanti Steel Industries, Mandi Gobindgarh, in favour of M/s Vikram Enterprises, Jalalabad for 3910 Kgs of TMT Bars amounting to ₹ 1,68,245/- including VAT charged. (ii) GR No. 12849 of Khanna Calcutta Transport Co. GT Road, Khanna. (iii) Invoice No. 786 dated 7.5.2013 issued by M/s Aar Kay Industries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Tribunal had recorded that two consignments, i.e., one issued vide invoice No. 19, dated 7.5.2013 for 3.910 MT from Mandi Gobindgarh to Jalalabad and the other issued vide invoice No. 786 dated 7.5.2013 of M/s Aar Kay Industries, Mandi Gobindgarh in favour of M/s Baldev Krishan sons, Jalalabad for 6.080 MT were in possession of the driver of the truck bearing No. HR-57-4097. Further, it was held that GR No. 12849 related to the transporting of the goods by the assessee. However, to show the bonafides, he had produced the purchase bill of 3.910 MT from M/s Aar Kay Industries in his favour even though there was no requirement of law to produce the same. Even the wrong fact was recorded by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2013 for 3.910 MT from Mandi Gobindgarh to Jalalabad. The other transaction was under invoice No. 786 dated 7.5.2013 of M/s Aar Kay Industries, Mandi Gobindgarh in favour of M/s Baldev Krishan sons, Jalalabad for 6.080 MT. The GR No. 12849 related to the transporting of the goods by the appellant. There was no requirement of law to produce the purchase bill of the goods from M/s Aar Kay Industries, Mandi Gobindgarh to the appellant, yet in order to prove all bonafides, produced the purchase bill of 3.910 MT from M/s Aar Kay Industries in his favour. The Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner has recorded a wrong fact that the books of account were not produced before the Excise and Taxation Officer. The invoice of e-trip was not pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities, the same are not correct and need to be set aside. Resultantly, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the order of penalty is quashed. 6. The Tribunal on appreciation of material on record had deleted the penalty of ₹ 50,500/- imposed by Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer. Learned State counsel was not able to demonstrate that the approach of the Tribunal was erroneous or perverse or that the findings recorded were based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence on record. The view of the Tribunal is a plausible view and deletion of the aforesaid penalty could not be faulted. 7. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, the instant appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
