Mangalam Alloys Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise Ahmedabad-III (Gujarat High Court)
The Revenue authorities and the Tribunal concurrently came to the conclusion that the transactions in question were nonexistence. The assessee was not able to establish the actual movement of the goods. When the RTO report strongly suggested that the vehicles in which the goods were stated to have been transported were incapable of doing so, the burden would be on the assessee to dislodge these primary findings particularly when the report of the RTO was not challenged. This reason would be further augmented when seen in light of the statement of the representative of the supplier who also could not explain the discrepancy. The assessee’s stand that it had merely ordered goods on FOR value and therefore was not obliged to explain the manner of transportation is too simplistic in background of facts on record. When RTO report as it remained unexplained by the suppliers of the goods clearly establish that the goods could not have been transported in the vehicle stated to have been done, the assessee called a greater explanation.
Learned counsel for the assessee however vehemently contended that the Tribunal proceeded merely on drawing presumptions and in similar circumstances transactions similar presumption has not been drawn. Firstly, we do not think that the conclusions of the Tribunal are based on drawing presumptions or adverse inference even though the Tribunal has fleetingly so stated. The findings are based on evidence suggesting no movement of goods. Secondly, the quality cannot be claimed in negative. If we find that findings of the Tribunal in respect of these twelve invoices not perverse, we would not entertain the appeal only to examine a contention that under similar circumstances the Tribunal has not adopted similar course.
