9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (12) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding Counsel, for the respondent. The revisionist's case is that it is a manufacturer of Lindane (T) for which the raw material is B.H.C. (T) which the revisionist purchases from M/s. Mico Farm Chemicals Limited, Madras. On January 19, 1991, a motor truck No. UPW4025 carrying 180 bags of B.H.C. (T) was found to have entered the State of Uttar Pradesh without having with it a form XXXI. The said truck was carrying the consignment of B.H.C. (T) consigned by the said M/s. Mico Farm Chemicals Ltd., Madras, and was to go to the revisionist. The truck was detained by the sales tax authorities and a show cause notice was issued to the driver who in its turn contacted the revisionist. The revisionist filed its explanation before the authorities c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other papers which included an excise gate pass, invoice and goods receipt which clearly indicated that the goods were coming from the aforesaid supplier and were destined to Bareilly for the dealerrevisionist. Form XXXI was presented to the officer, who had issued a show cause notice even before the goods were seized under section 28-A(6) of the Act and there was material to show that there was transhipment of goods at Nagpur where the vehicle was changed. The revisionist had also produced evidence to show that the concerned form XXXI was sent by it to supplier at Madras along with 8 other forms, and all this was done at the first instance. There is no circumstance, whatsoever which may indicate that there was any attempt on the part of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that it had sent the said form along with 8 other forms and the selling dealer had handed over the same to the transporter along with other documents.
In any case, even if the dealer had somehow omitted to send form XXXI and had promptly supplied the same to the check-post officer, there was sufficient compliance of the provisions of the Act and the Rules and no penalty was deserved.
For the above reasons, this revision petition is allowed and setting aside the Tribunal's order dated August 4, 1995, it is ordered that the dealer's Second Appeal No. 52 of 1993 against the levy of penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) of the Act stands allowed and the penalty is quashed in its entirety. Petition allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
