TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amine whether the assessee is eligible for such benefit - In the present case, there is no factual dispute of goods having been imported from outside the State of U.P. and, therefore, the assessee clearly qualifies for the said benefit. In light of the same, the question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department - the revision application is dismissed. - Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J. For the Revisionist : Bipin Kumar Pandey,S.C. For the Opposite Party : Shubham Agrawal ORDER HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF,J. 1. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. This is an application for revision under Section 58 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of U.P. for utilization in the works contract. 5. Learned counsel on behalf of respondent assessee has relied upon paragraph nos. 11, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21 and 23 to buttress his argument that the ratio of the case is that when the goods are coming from outside the State and the Tribunal comes to a specific finding that the goods were brought in to the State for the purpose of carrying out pre-existing works contract, the benefit of deduction contemplated under Section 9(1)(e) of the Rules would be available to the assessee. 6. Upon perusal of the order of Tribunal it is patently clear that the goods were imported from outside the State of U.P. and were used in one project in the State of U.P. There does not appear to be any perversity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cide the dispute should end there. According to the facts found by the Tribunal, the deemed sale was one performed in the course of inter-state sale as the movement of the goods had been occasioned from outside the state, only for the purpose of execution of the works contracts, by the assessee. 14. It would have been a completely different case if the assessee had been found to hold in stock any goods that may have been imported from before and may have been applied to the works contract subsequently. However, neither there is any room for presumption nor such speculation is permissible in the clear facts of the present case. . . . 19. That being the governing principle, the language of Rule 9(1)(e) of the Rules re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
