2003 (1) TMI 714

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ated 30th March, 1991 relating to the Assessement Year 1982-83. 2. The applicant-dealer was registered dealer and carrying on business of footwear. Applicant made purchases of footwear from M/s. Bumpy Shoe Company, Faridabad against Bill No. 1477, dated 29th January, 1983 and while importing the goods at the initial checking bill and Form 31 could not be produced at the check post. However, the b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... penalty and reduced the penalty to ₹ 19,132 from ₹ 28,288. Being aggrieved by the order of Tribunal, dealer filed the present revision. 3. I have heard Sri Alok Kumar, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Standing Counsel. 4. The contention of the Counsel for the applicant is that bill and Form 31 was available but inadvertently they could not be produced at initial checking .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ) (o) could not be levied for technical default unless a case of an attempt to evade the tax is made out. A perusal of the penalty order shows that no finding whatsoever has been recorded that there was any attempt to evade the tax. In the circumstances, penalty levied under Section 15-A (1) (o) is not justified. 5. In the result the revision is allowed and the order of Tribunal dated 30th March, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X