JUDGMENT

Ritu Bahri, J.

CM-218-CII-2011

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 10 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

VATAP-1-2011 (O&M)

2. The appellant has come up in appeal against the order dated 19.11.2009 (Annexure A-10) passed by the VAT Tribunal, Punjab.

3. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a dealer engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of electrical goods, electrical fittings at Mumbai and has branches all over India including Jalandhar. The appellant M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. purchased EFS KV.350 MVA, Oil type, Extensible Fuse Switchgear from M/s. CG Lucy Switchgears Limited, Nasik and the same were sold to M/s. Arihant Industrial Equipment, Armitsar and the selling dealer was asked to issue Invoice and GR in the name of M/s. Arihant Industrial Equipment, Amritsar in the account of the appellant. The appellant had placed on record following three invoices:

1. Invoice No. 425 dated 21.07.2006 for Rs.3,38,000/- (Annexure A-1).

2. Invoice No. 426 dated 21.07.2006 for Rs.4,29,000/- (Annexure A-2) and

3. Invoice No. 427 dated 21.07.2006 for Rs.4,29,000/- (Annexure A-3).

4. The goods were accompanied by the Goods Receipts No. 343438, 343439 and 343440 all dated 21.07.2006 from Nasik to Amritsar of M/s. Associated Road Carriers Limited. Goods Receipts are placed on record as Annexures A-4 to A-6. These goods were to be delivered at M/s. Bhusan Thukral Govt. Contractor at Ludhiana who is also the registered dealer in the State of Punjab. The goods were removed from the warehouse of selling dealer/consignor on 21.07.2006 at 08:45 p.m. after payment of excise duty. The consignee i.e. M/s. Bhushan Thukral Govt. Contractor, Ludhiana is registered under the Punjab VAT Act 2005 with TIN No. 03791052117 and this No. was also mentioned on each Invoice and Goods Receipts. The goods vehicle bearing No. RJ-14-2G-8183 loaded with electrical goods and driven by Rajinder Singh reached ICC, Shambhu (Import) on 01.08.2006. The driver incharge of the vehicle had produced following documents:-

1) Invoice No. 0425 dated 21.7.2006 issued by M/s C G Lucy Switchgear Ltd. F-10 MIDC, Ambad Nasik in favour of the above dealer for Rs. 3,38,000/- along with GR No. 343438 dated 21.7.2006 issued by M/s Associated Road Carriers Limited, Kolkata for the transportation of goods from Nasik to Amritsar.

2) Invoice No. 0426 dated 21.7.2006 issued by M/s C G Lucy Switchgear Ltd. F-10 MIDC, Ambad Nasik in favour of the above dealer for Rs. 4,29,000/- along with GR No. 343439 dated 21.7.2006 issued by M/s Associated Road Carriers Limited, Kolkata for the transportation of goods from Nasik to Amritsar; and

3) Invoice No. 0427 dated 21.7.2006 issued by M/s CG Lucy Switchgear Ltd. F-10 MIDC, Ambad Nasik in favour of the above dealer for Rs. 4,29,000/- along with GR No. 343440 dated 21.7.2006 issued by M/s Associated Road Carriers Limited, Kolkata for the transportation of goods from Nasik to Amritsar.

5. The ETO on duty found that the goods were to be delivered to M/s. Bhushan Thukral Govt. Contractor at Ludhiana who is also the registered dealer in the State of Punjab. The supply was in account of M/s. Crompton Greaves Limited. There was no GR or any other documents for delivery of goods at Ludhiana. The genuineness of the documents was suspected and the goods were detained. On notice, one Ranjit Singal, Chartered Accountant appeared on behalf of the consignor of the goods. He stated that the supply of goods were F.O.R. and goods were to be delivered to M/s. Bhushan Thukral, contractor at Ludhiana. The designated officer came to the conclusion that the goods were be