TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account of theft and since the enforcement authority had only an access to verify the duplicate set of documents, could not have arrived at a conclusion that the consignor M/s Bhagawathi Enterprises is from Salem, Tamil Nadu, and the Cosignee being at New Delhi, in transit, no penalty could have been levied by the check post officer. The revisional authority having found the same being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, has rightly initiated the suo moto revisional proceedings, more particularly, when the check post officer and ACCT (Enforcement) had conducted thorough investigation into the genuineness of the consignment, the goods and had come to a conclusion that the goods have been loaded in Karnataka by M/s Bhaga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal order dated 24.8.2015 passed by the first appellate authority has been set aside and the penalty order passed on 14.9.2011 under Section 53(12) of the Act by the ACCT (Enforcement), Tumakuru, has been restored. 2. The appellant M/s Bright Road Logistic is a transporter of goods. On 16.5.2011, in the goods vehicle bearing No.HR-61-A-4041 the appellant has transported the consignment goods sold by M/s Bhagawathi Enterprises, Salem, Tamil Nadu (consignor) to M/s Metal Traders, Delhi, as per the invoice bearing No.032, dated 16.5.2011 for ₹ 57,41,304/-. The ACCT (Enforcement), Tumakuru, having received the information that the transporter has carried the scrap of Copper, Aluminium and Brass, totally valued at ₹ 58,56 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Court, in the appellant s own case in STRP.No.83/2018 and connected matters, (D.D 19.7.2021) submitted that the identical issue of consignment moving from Salem to Delhi through Karnataka as contended by the appellant herein was examined with respect to the consignor M/s Bhagawathi Enterprises; having noticed the mismatch in Tin number of the consignee with the declaration made in the Lorry receipt and the invoice as well as no recorded transit pass in respect of the consignment, has confirmed the action of the authorities in treating the same as a case of evasion of tax calling for imposition of penalty. It is submitted that the said ruling is applicable to the present case also. 6. We have considered the rival submissions of the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... similar inter-State transit goods with respect to transit pass in respect of the consignment not being recorded in the inward check post and has held that the levy of penalty was justifiable. As aforesaid, the check post officer has categorically given a finding that the documents have not been tendered for examination at the inward check post of the Karnataka State and no seal of the check post in the State was found in invoices in addition to the transit pass required for inter-State transit. The said discrepancies would certainly come within the ambit of Section 53(2) of the Act and thus, imposition of penalty under Section 53(12) for violation of the provisions of Section 53(2) of the Act cannot be found fault with. Thus, the proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
