TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he fraud report only on the ground that the earlier order of the Tribunal pertained to the year 1991-92 whereas the year in question was 1992- 93. A co-ordinate Bench of the same Tribunal had in its order dated 14th May, 2002 already disbelieved the same fraud report and concluded that there was no basis for raising the demand. In terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR VERSUS MATADOR FOAM [ 2005 (1) TMI 107 - SUPREME COURT] the Tribunal was bound by the earlier order of the co-ordinate Bench involving the very same Assessee. The question framed by the Court is answered in negative i.e. in favour of the Assessee and against the Department - the revision petition disposed of. - STREV No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner-Company. The Inspector of Sales Tax found 37 slips of paper along with one diary from the godown premises and noticed certain entries made therein, on which basis, the STO, Ganjam submitted a report to the STO, Sambalpur-II Circle stating therein that the Petitioner is indulged in sale suppression for the year 1991-92 and 1992-93. He quantified the excess stock for 1991-92 at 1722 bags and for 1992-93 the excess stock of cement was quantified as 1239 bags. A fraud report dated 24th July, 1992 was prepared by the Inspector Sales Tax (IST), Ganjam-I Circle for the year 1991-92. The assessment was re-opened under Section 12(8) of the OST Act. 3. The Assessing Officer completed the reassessment confirming the demand of ₹ 1,33,600/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Tribunal relating to the year 1992-93, the Tribunal does not refer to any such additional material other than the fraud report. The Tribunal proceeded to accept the fraud report only on the ground that the earlier order of the Tribunal pertained to the year 1991-92 whereas the year in question was 1992- 93. 6. A co-ordinate Bench of the same Tribunal had in its order dated 14th May, 2002 already disbelieved the same fraud report and concluded that there was no basis for raising the demand. In terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Matador Foam (2005) 2 SCC 59 the Tribunal was bound by the earlier order of the co-ordinate Bench involving the very same Assessee. 7. For the aforem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
