THERMO KING INDIA PVT LIMITED Vs. DEPUTY EXCISE AND TAXATION COMMISSIONER JALLANDHAR CUM JOINT DIRECTOR (INVG ) JALLANDHAR PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short, "the Act") against the impugned orders Annexures A-1, A-2 and A-3 dated 27.6.2006, 23.7.2009 and 24.12.2010 respectively, claiming following substantial questions of law for consideration of this Court:-

(2.) Brief facts as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The appellant is engaged in the business of importing and selling of temperature control units. It alongwith two other companies i.e. M/s ITC Limited and M/s Snowman Frozen Foods Limited executed a Memorandum of Understanding to run supply chain of fresh fruits and vegetables by installing cooling centre. While executing its respective part, the appellant after importing evaporator unit from USA despatched the same on the address given by M/s Snowman Food Frozen Limited alongwith invoice/challan and with the certificate that the goods were meant for demonstration, trial and not for sale. The goods being transported were accompanied by proper documents as required under section 51(2) of the Act. On checking, the goods were detained and vide order dated 27.6.2006, Annexure A-1 respondent No.2 imposed penalty of Rs.16,23,577/- holding that the goods were actually purchased by M/s Snowman Frozen Foods Limited, Pind Ganna, Phillaur, District Jalandhar and were for trade and thus, there was an attempt to evade payment of tax. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant filed an appeal before respondent No.1which was dismissed vide order dated 23.7.2009, Annexure A-2. Thereafter, the appellant filed second appeal before the Tribunal which was also dismissed vide order dated 24.12.2010, Annexure A-3. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was a lease agreement dated 31.3.2006 between M/s Snowman Frozen Foods Limited and the appellant and the goods in question which were being sent in the vehicle were not for sale and had been sent for trial and demonstration purposes to M/s Snowman Frozen Foods Limited and as such there was no attempt at evasion of tax within the meaning of section 51(7) of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal and the authorities below have failed to appreciate the controversy in right perspective and arrived at a wrong conclusion and thus, substantial questions of law claimed by the appellant arose for consideration in the circumstances.