Ashwani Kumar Mishra - (1.) This revision has been preferred by the assessee challenging an order of the Tribunal dated 27th August, 2007, whereby part reduction has been allowed in the tax liability. To the extent tax liability is maintained, over and above the admitted liability, the revisionist is aggrieved and has filed the present revision.
(2.) Revisionist is engaged in manufacturing of edible oil and oil cake etc. In respect of the assessment year 2002-03 (Central), an assessment order has been passed against the assessee on 13th September, 2006, which has been affirmed in appeal by the first appellate authority and the tax liability has been partially modified by the Tribunal. The factual issue raised is regarding three challans nos. 304, 305 and 306, vide which movement of goods had taken place out of the premises of the assessee vide different trucks, to Bharatpur in Rajasthan, for its onward shipment by railway wagons. According to the revisionist, these transactions stood cancelled on account of the fact that railway wagons were not available and that such goods were sold within the State. This defence has been rejected by the Assessing Officer, after taking note of fact that trucks, by which these consignments were to be taken out from the factory premises, were clearly reflected in the stock movement register, and that the vehicle had moved out of the premises. A further finding is returned that such transferred goods have subsequently not entered the premises. This specific finding has been affirmed by the first appellate authority and by the Tribunal.
(3.) Although the learned counsel for the revisionist has placed materials in support of the revision but no perversity could be shown in the finding returned against the assessee. The demand of tax, consequently, does not require any interference. No perversity or illegality is shown in the orders of the Tribunal. The question of law framed in this revision is, therefore, answered against the assessee.;