TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the above Entry 29-B. In other words, while for the remaining sales made to defence personnel or defence organizations for which proof was produced by the Assessee, the deduction as claimed was allowed, the sales to the aforementioned three individuals was not treated as sales to Defence Service installations. The requirement of Entry 29-B is that the dealer should have sold the goods to Defence Service installations and at the highest to Defence personnel and not to individuals who may or may not have further sold it to Defence personnel or Defence Services installations - In that view of the matter, the Court is unable to find any error having been committed either by the ACST or the Tribunal that calls for any interference. The ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessee was found to have purchased IMFL to the tune of Rs. 19,17,69,427.00 from Utkal Distillery Pvt. Ltd., Khurda. On this basis, the deduction as claimed by the Assessee was allowed. 4. The Assessee further claimed deduction of Rs. 1,14,15,118/- towards sale to Defence Organizations. However, according to the STO since the Assessee failed to produce any evidence in support of such transaction, the deduction was disallowed. 5. When the Assessee was filed a further appeal before the ACST, to the extent that the Assessee was able to produce proof of sales to Defence personnel and Defence installations the deduction was allowed as prayed for. Sale of IMFL amounting to Rs. 1,11,73,805.00 out of Rs. 1,14,15,118.00 Defence Organizations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence personnel or defence organizations for which proof was produced by the Assessee, the deduction as claimed was allowed, the sales to the aforementioned three individuals was not treated as sales to Defence Service installations. 9. Counsel for the Petitioner sought to refer to the entry in the permit issued to the Petitioner which states: for sale to Defence personnel only . He submits that the consignments themselves bore a similar label, and therefore, although the sales were made to individuals, they could in turn sell the goods only to Defence personnel. 10. The Court is not impressed with the above submission. The requirement of Entry 29-B is that the dealer should have sold the goods to Defence Service installations and at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
