9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (10) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Agra, whereby it dismissed the revisionist's Second Appeal No. 429 of 1988 for assessment year 1982-83 against the levy of penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) of the Act. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Standing Counsel. The revisionist is a manufacturer of shoes. During the year under consideration it imported goods worth Rs. 1,16,940 by rail and air withou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st contended that in this case the dealer had acted bona fide and the purchases in question represented only a part of the purchases made by the dealer all of which were duly accounted for in the books of account. According to him since there was no dishonest intention on the part of the assessee, no penalty should be levied. Reliance is placed on Garg Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h for imposition of penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) and existence of mens rea was not necessary. In the present case as stated above, the dealer is a manufacturer of shoes and it seems that the goods in question were imported for being used as raw material. None of the authorities below has stated that if it had not been noticed that the goods were imported without complying with section 28-A a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... STC 211; [1972] 83 ITR 26, deliberately in defiance of law or the dealer was guilty of conduct, contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of his obligation. In the case the honourable Supreme Court further observed that penalty will not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed the authority competent to impose penalty will be just ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
