TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 1354
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anufacture of Ceramic Glaze Mixture. He pointed out that during the period 1999-2000 & 2000-20001. The Company was owned by "Kaneria" family. He pointed out that in July 2001 the company was taken over by "Patel" Family. He pointed out that the show cause notice was issued in the year 2002 for the alleged clandestine clearances made during 1999-2000 & 2000-20001. He pointed out that during the investigations some "computerized sales register" was recovered from the premises of the bill owners of the company i.e. Kaneria family, located in Surat. He pointed out that earlier the demand was confirmed. The matter was taken up before the Tribunal and it was shown to the Tribunal that there is duplicacy in demand and the computerized sales regist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TAL 14444500.00 3. He pointed out that the first column is the serial number, the second column is date, the third column is bill number, the forth column is the name of the buyer, the fifth column is the total bill amount, the 6 and 7 column are the value of the two materials sold by them i.e. Opeak and transparent, the 8 column is the tax collected in the transaction, and the ninth column is the truck No. and the amount calculated for the transport. He pointed out that the bill amount (column 5) is the total some of the value collected i.e. the value of the material (Opeak or transparent, tax and the transport charges). For the example in serial No. 1 the bill amount of Rs. 88750/- is the total of the charge of material Op....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le record and clandestine clearances of 1.44 crore is correct. Ld. Counsel argued that this assertion in incorrect as the Ledger which shows clearance of 1.55 crore is obviously not related to the clandestine clearances and therefore cannot be compared with the computerized sales record which relates to clandestine clearances. 2. The Commissioner has also relied on statements made by the dealer M/s. Shafron Glass & Ceramics, wherein it is claim that the they have admitted that the sales through clandestine clearances were Rs. 1302619/- for the year 1999 and Rs. 1,44,49,460/- for order 1999- 2000. 4. Ld. Counsel also argued that the Revenue has not recovered any bill and in absences of bill no such assertion can be made. 5. Ld. AR r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arge is taken into consideration, the same would amount to Rs. 72,22,250/-, which figure is separately shown as total sale in the said computer print. However, the commissioner instead of taking the total sale as Rs. 72,22,250/-, has erroneously taken the sum total of all the figure and had arrived at a sale of Rs. 1,44,44,500/- 3. We have seen the relevant page for the said entry. Total sale shown as Rs. 72,22,250/- is the sum total of the sale of two varieties as also tax and transportation. As such, we agree with the Ld. Advocate that there is no jurisdiction by doubling the said sale figures." 7. It is clear from the above that the issue regarding the duplication of demand has been finalizing by Tribunal and Commissioner has no ju....