9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1016X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of a cone crusher? and (ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in having overlooked the compounding proceedings issued by the Commercial Tax Officer on 29.06.2011, which is already in force? 2. On facts, it has to be noticed that the assessee at the commencement of the year had one primary crusher and two secondary crushers. The assessee sought for compounding, which was granted at a total compounding fee of Rs. 8,48,400/- by proceedings dated 29.06.2011. In the course of the year, the assessee filed another compounding application on 30.09.2012, wherein he sought compounding for a primary crusher and a cone crusher. The same was also allowed by proceedings dated 21.01.2012. Hence, from the two compounding applications filed, one has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in O.T.Rev.No.56/2013 dated 01.07.2015. The facts in that case indicate that therein a person who was not entitled to compounding, for reason of having registration under the CST Act; applied for compounding and obtained permission to compound. The AO later detected that there was a CST registration even when the compounding application was filed. The AO sought to assess the dealer under the regular scheme carrying out re-opening under Section 25. Permission granted for compounding was not cancelled. It was in such circumstances that the Court held that without cancellation of the permission for compounding, there is no scope for assessment under Section 25. The said dictum does not at all apply here. Here, there are two compounding a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rushers are still existing in the unit. There is absolutely no document produced to evidence that the crushers having been removed or the AO intimated of such removal. The further contention is based on Annexures-E and F. Annexure-E is a judgment of a learned Single Judge, wherein the facts indicate a dealer having introduced a new crusher in the close of the year. The learned Single Judge found that the compounding fee has to be fixed proportionately and the period of compounding can only commence from the date on which the new crusher was introduced. Annexure-F followed Annexure-E in the case of the petitioner himself. The petitioner had made a similar prayer and this Court had allowed the prayer directing compounding fee as per the seco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
