2020 (2) TMI 1393

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the CGST & Central Excise. 2. The petitioner Company is the manufacturer of electrolytic tinplates and registered under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. They are also the exporters of the electrolytic tinplates and during the year 2004-05 electrolytic tinplates worth Rs. 4,68,58,433.93 were exported to Nepal. Since the sales tax is not leviable on exports, the petitioner Company claimed exemption, which was disallowed during the regular assessment vide order dated 31.07.2008. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was also rejected. 3. Against the said order, the petitioner moved before the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Ranchi, (herein after r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unsel for the petitioner submitted that the Nepal invoice is given in six copies, and petitioner was having only the extra copy of the invoice on which the certifications were missing, which were done only in the original and the duplicate copies of the Nepal invoice, which had been submitted to the Excise Authorities, and they were no more in possession of the petitioner. In view of this submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, by order dated 26.09.2019, we directed the Department of CGST and Central Excise to be added as party respondent in this case and notice was given to them. The CGST and Central Excise responded to the notice and filed their counter affidavit in which they have stated as follows:- "5.That with regard to su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that in fact the export was made. Even in the Judgment dated 19.05.2016, passed by the Tribunal in Revision No. JR 157 of 2015, it was held that there was no reason to doubt that the petitioner had exported the goods to Nepal, but since the export made by the petitioner was not supported by the required document bearing the signatures of the two boarder officials, the claim of the petitioner was denied. 9. The required document was deposited with the Central Excise Department and they have also stated in their counter affidavit that the aforesaid export was made by the petitioner Company, which fact is also now accepted by the State Government in their supplementary counter affidavit, stating that the matter be remitted to the Assessing A....