Full Judgment
2. The representative of the appellant contends that, while simultaneously in addition to endorsing the invoice of the manufacturer that they received, the dealers of the manufacturer who sent the goods to the appellant also issued separate invoice and credit is invalidly taken of these invoices.
3. After considering the invoice in question I am unable to accept the submission. The five manufacturers invoice of Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd., Surat were issued on different dates on 8^th, 16^th and 27^th April 1994 to dealers Shejanan Textiles, Dhanlaxmi Textiles and Shubhlaxmi Textiles all at Surat. These partners of these firms have endorsed the invoice on the same date. The invoice of these dealers were dated the same as the date of the endorsement. It is difficult to understand why the dealer should simultaneously endorse the manufacturer's invoice and issue a fresh invoice on his own.
Representative of the appellant attempts to say, when asked this question, that the dealers came to know shortly after the endorsement of invoice that such endorsement was incorrect and therefore issued fresh invoice. The time of removal of the goods from the factory of manufacture at Surat in each case is after 3 p.m. If the explanation tendered by the representative of (he appellant were to he accepted it would follow that after the invoice were endorsed which would be in an hour or two after the removal of the goods from the manufacturer factory account for transit loading and unloading etc., the dealers came to know that the endorsed invoices were unacceptable, issued their invoices the same night. This is highly improbable.
4. There are other factors which are to be considered. The invoice themselves does not have any running serial number and have only handwritten numbers. There is on them nothing to indicate when they were issued. There is no independent indication when they were issued.
The invoices in question has not been cited in reply before the Commissioner (Appeals). In that reply, there is only a general reference to invoice issued by the dealer. The representative of the appellant not substantiated that the copies of the invoice were handed over to the adjudicating authority. I am therefore satisfied by means of evidence before me that the invoice of the dealers, on which reliance is placed were not issued in the normal course of trade and were not in existence when credit was taken on the dates of endorsement of the invoice. I therefore find no ground to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s finding.