ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) Assessee, Sarva Shri Hind Rolling Mills, has filed this revision against an order passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Varanasi, dated 23rd June, 2006, whereby its appeal relating to assessment proceedings for the years 1987-1988, 1988-1989 and 1989-1990 have been rejected. The Tribunal has disbelieved the plea set up by the revisionist that it is only engaged in performing job work, and that it has only been paid wages.
(2.) According to the assesee, it is engaged in business of rolling copper and copper alloy circles out of billets on job work basis. Raw material for the purposes is provided to it by different parties. The relevant records of persons, who had allegedly supplied copper and copper alloy to the assessee was verified and notices issued to them returned unserved. The appellate authority gave further opportunity to the revisionist to furnish details of all such persons but it failed. The Tribunal has disbelieved the plea of the assessee that it had not indulged in actual sale of product and had only performed the job work. The Tribunal has also relied upon the representation made by the Association of Metal Traders of Mirzapur to seek remission from payment of tax for the year 1986-1987, on an assurance that henceforth they would be maintaining proper records and furnishing details thereof. After furnishing an affidavit, the benefit of remission of tax for the year 1986-1987 was availed, but in the subsequent years also the details of dealers whose copper and copper alloy are alleged to have been processed have not been given.
(3.) Order of the Tribunal is challenged on the ground that assessee is not required to maintain records of the persons from whom copper and copper alloy was received by the assessee and the available details have been furnished. The revisionist has placed reliance upon certain gate passes issued under the Central Excise Act in order to contend that no excise duty was paid for the reason that it was the dealers, who supplied new materials to it, who were fastened with the liability of payment of Central Excise. It is also contended that in respect of subsequent periods for the same assessee and in respect of other assessees, such liability of tax had not been imposed. In order to substantiate it, a supplementary affidavit had also been filed.;