TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 1354
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ointed out that during the period 1999-2000 & 2000-20001. The Company was owned by "Kaneria" family. He pointed out that in July 2001 the company was taken over by "Patel" Family. He pointed out that the show cause notice was issued in the year 2002 for the alleged clandestine clearances made during 1999-2000 & 2000-20001. He pointed out that during the investigations some "computerized sales register" was recovered from the premises of the bill owners of the company i.e. Kaneria family, located in Surat. He pointed out that earlier the demand was confirmed. The matter was taken up before the Tribunal and it was shown to the Tribunal that there is duplicacy in demand and the computerized sales register has been wrongly interpreted. He showe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... materials sold by them i.e. Opeak and transparent, the 8 column is the tax collected in the transaction, and the ninth column is the truck No. and the amount calculated for the transport. He pointed out that the bill amount (column 5) is the total some of the value collected i.e. the value of the material (Opeak or transparent, tax and the transport charges). For the example in serial No. 1 the bill amount of Rs. 88750/- is the total of the charge of material Opeak variety of the Rs. 72000/-, the tax of Rs. 8640/- and transport charges of Rs. 8110/-. He pointed out that the bill amount is some total of the charges of material i.e. Rs. 72,000/-, the tax amount i.e. Rs. 8640/- and transport amount i.e. Rs. 8110/-. He pointed out that all the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd which relates to clandestine clearances. 2. The Commissioner has also relied on statements made by the dealer M/s. Shafron Glass & Ceramics, wherein it is claim that the they have admitted that the sales through clandestine clearances were Rs. 1302619/- for the year 1999 and Rs. 1,44,49,460/- for order 1999- 2000. 4. Ld. Counsel also argued that the Revenue has not recovered any bill and in absences of bill no such assertion can be made. 5. Ld. AR relies on the impugned order in respect of the issue regarding clandestine clearances based on computerized sales register. He further pointed out that while confirming the demand in denovo proceedings in para 15 of the OIO the Commissioner has held that the assesses is liable to pay duty al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ived at a sale of Rs. 1,44,44,500/- 3. We have seen the relevant page for the said entry. Total sale shown as Rs. 72,22,250/- is the sum total of the sale of two varieties as also tax and transportation. As such, we agree with the Ld. Advocate that there is no jurisdiction by doubling the said sale figures." 7. It is clear from the above that the issue regarding the duplication of demand has been finalizing by Tribunal and Commissioner has no jurisdiction to question the said decision. If Revenue had any doubt regarding the aforesaid decision they should challenged the said decision of the Tribunal. Having failed to challenge the said decision it become final and binding on Commissioner. Thus, the impugned order is being in violation of....