TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Dismissed for Selling to Fictitious Firm without License</h1> The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal against the demand of duty and penalty for selling goods to a fictitious firm with a revoked license. The ... 100% EOU - fictitious firm - cancellation of registration - demand of duty - penalty - Held that: - the appellant has sold the goods without any consideration, no payment was received and no attempt was made to recover the amount. On enquiry by the department, it was found that M/s. Panorama Enterprises is a fictitious firm not holding a valid ARO - impugned order upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues: Appeal against demand of duty and penalty for sale of goods to a fictitious firm holding a revoked license by a 100% EOU.Analysis:The appellant, a 100% EOU, filed an appeal against the demand of duty and penalty imposed by the department for selling goods to M/s Panorama Enterprises, a fictitious firm whose license was suspended and later revoked. The appellant had sold three consignments to the buyer, who was found to be non-existent during investigation. The department demanded duty on the consignments and levied a penalty, leading to the appellant's appeal against the order-in-appeal No. 341-342/2007 dated 10/09/2007.During the hearing, both parties were represented by their learned representatives. The Tribunal, after hearing the arguments and examining the records, noted that the appellant had sold the goods without receiving any consideration, and no effort was made to recover the amount owed. It was established that M/s Panorama Enterprises was a fictitious firm without a valid Advance Release Order (ARO). Consequently, the Tribunal agreed with the impugned order, upholding it for the reasons stated therein. As a result, the appeals filed by the appellant were dismissed.In summary, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant against the demand of duty and penalty for selling goods to a fictitious firm with a revoked license, as the appellant had failed to establish any valid consideration for the sale and the buyer was found to be non-existent without a valid ARO.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
