2014 (3) TMI 877

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Per D.N. Panda; None present for the respondent. Matter is rolling on Board in Tribunal from 2006. The respondent is one of the beneficiary of the fraud from the 93 parallel invoices issued by Surya Cotspin Ltd. Extensive inquiry by Revenue revealed that this Respondent along with others connived with M/s Surya Cotspin Ltd. to evade duty. Movement of the goods covered by the questioned paralle....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....roduction quantity before 03.03.2001 resulting in movement of such goods to the extent of 5750 Kgs. On 21.02.2001 when goods covered by invoice No. 290 & 291 both dated 21.02.2001 were intercepted by Sales Tax authorities of Patiala, full proof case of clandestine removal was established. 4. It is further allegation of Revenue that the Surya Cotspin Ltd. designed fraud scientifically against Re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e and also perused adjudication order dated 24.03.2005. So also, appellate findings recorded was examined. 7. Order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not record any of the above evidence proving scrutiny thereof at his end. He merely relied on the Sales Tax Tribunals order dated 08.11.2003 and also doubting photo copy of the parallel invoices, exonerated the respondent from penalty. Hi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... operandi. Strict proof is essential in criminal proceedings. But the evidence demonstrating probability is enough to draw inference in fiscal proceeding. Decision of one Court does not bind another court created under different statutes. Therefore order of Sales Tax Tribunal does not bind CESTAT. 8. The manner how transactions have been made proved oblique motive and connivance of the buyer re....