2014 (7) TMI 1205

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....identical. The petitioner before us is M/s. Basant Engineering, the manufacturing  unit of Basant Cables and Conductors Pvt. Ltd. As per averments made in  this case, M/s. Basant Engineering Manufactures Conductors and M/s. Basant Cables & Conductors Pvt. Ltd. is the marketing arm of the company.  Both have been registered separately. The petitioner had filed assessment  for the years 1996-97 to 2004-05 which were reopened vide notice dated  January 22, 2005. The case of the Revenue was that as per the books of the  petitioner after tallying the opening stock of raw materials the additional purchase of raw material, other incidental charges, etc., the stock transfer  to the manufacturing arm, i.e., M/s. B....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... April 9, 2009 are inclusive of excise duty  and on purchase of raw materials and the excise duty involved on the  sale of finished goods relating to purchase of raw materials, respectively. Excise duty paid on purchase of raw materials should not be  taken into account twice for the purpose of cost of production. As  regard for the years 2003-04 and 2004-05, it is established that the  appellant did not bring the amount of excise duty paid on purchase of  raw materials in the cost of production for the year and evaded the  tax involved. Therefore, the decision of the learned assessing authority raising demand of Rs. 57,163 and Rs. 75,209 for the years 2003-04 and 2004-05 charging interest and imposing pen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent order has been passed  in the absence of the petitioner because the petitioner did not care to  appear before the assessing officer. This assessment has been directly challenged by filing the present petitions. Now the main ground taken is that  the assessing officer should have given adjournment to the petitioner. Before us it is urged that the assessing officer erred in not granting any adjournment and granting a date to the assessee to approach the High  Court. The order of the Commissioner of Taxes was passed on September  4, 2013. Thereafter notice was issued to the assessee on September 30,  2013. The assessee asked for a date and thereafter another date was given  directing it to appear before ....