TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r: (a) Consignment of 56 bales of cotton yarn belonging to the appellant in STA No. 8 of 1994. The pro forma Invoice dated September 1, 1990 tendered by the driver showed the appellant as the consignor and consignee and the value of the consignment as Rs. 22,176 and the transportation was by way of stock transfer from Bombay to Bangalore. Another documents accompanying the said consignment (that is bill No. 180 dated July 13, 1990) under which the appellant had purchased the goods showed the value of 98 bales as Rs. 3,84,650 and corresponding value for 56 bales was Rs. 2,19,800. Therefore, he inferred that the documents were not in order. (b) In regard to another consignment of 29 boxes of plastic hangers, the invoices tendered (Nos. 30 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mistake, it was noted in the bill as "delivery to Pramodh Silk Industry, Bombay" and that there was no intention to evade tax. They also contended that these facts were not explained to the check-post officer leading to levy of penalty. The appellate authority, before whom necessary documents were produced, examined the same and the documents accompanying the consignments and accepted the said explanations. Consequently, he set aside the orders of penalty and levied a nominal penalty of Rs. 1,000 for not explaining these facts to the check-post officer. 5.. The revisional authority, in exercise of his powers of revision under section 22A of the Act, issued show cause notice dated May 21, 1993 and thereafter passed an order dated October 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of stock transfer and the lorry receipt clearly showed that the appellants were the consignors and consignees in regard to their respective consignments. Having examined the documents, the appellate authority satisfied himself that there was no intention to avoid tax and consequently levied a nominal penalty of Rs. 1,000 in each case for not explaining the facts to the check-post officer. The said order did not call for revision. There is no error in the order of the appellate authority nor is it prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The mere fact that the matter was not explained to the checkpost officer properly was not by itself sufficient to revise the order of the appellate authority. In fact, that has been taken note of by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
