2007 (1) TMI 7

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rst Appellate Authority in terms of aforesaid order. The matter in controversy arising out of common cause relating to the assessee as well as its owner, ended with two different proceedings against them before the learned adjudicating authority who passed a common order for both the cases and such common order was subject-matter of first appeal. The learned first appellate authority had also disposed both the appeals by aforesaid common order. Accordingly the cause being same, both appeals of Revenue is also dealt by this common order having been heard analogous. 2.The ld. DR at the very outset submitted that the first Appellate Order is unsustainable in the sense that a manufacturing activity was treated by learned Commissioner (Appeal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was no  contrary evidence on record brought out by Revenue by any further inquiry subsequent to visit to its premises. He submitted that sale was made to project Director, DRDA Navrangpur. 32 numbers of CPU, 32 numbers of Monitor, 8 numbers of CVT and 8 numbers of printers were subject-matter of sale by the above bill which were procured by head office of the Respondent at New Delhi and sent for delivery in Orissa to the above buyer. While the goods were in transit, those were found by the Preventing Officer of the Department and inspection followed by such interception, to the business premises of the Respondent neither could result with any finding of assembling materials nor tools and tackles thereat. No infrastructure for carrying ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ruled out to have not arrived from different places. The bill shows that head office of the Respondent is in Delhi and the order of adjudication dated 29-4-2000 showed that the goods were obtained from various traders at New Delhi and meant for DRDA Navrangpur in Orissa. 5.Origin of goods was by assembly remained unproved by Revenue for which plea of manufacture has no legs to stand. Suspicion however grave may be not being substitute of proof, no probability of manufacture in Orissa was militated from the exercise of Revenue. The whole activity was mere trading. Inter-State nature of trading transaction was not at any point of time  controverted by Revenue  making any inquiry to head office of Respondent at Delhi. Also whether....