9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 574987, as required under section 28-A of the Act, along with bills and builties was submitted. The check-post officer seized the goods on the ground that on chemical examination it was found that the goods sought to be imported were not zinc dross but were zinc, inasmuch as 96.5 zinc was found while according to report in dross the percentage of zinc should be 82.67 per cent. The goods were subsequently released on furnishing security. In pursuance of the seizure, penalty proceeding under section 15-A(1)(o) of the Act was initiated. The applicant filed a reply, which was not accepted and a sum of Rs. 1,38,600 was levied towards penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) of the Act. The assessing authority estimated the value at Rs. 3,46,000. The fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no violation of section 28-A of the Act. According to him, there was a difference of opinion in respect of the description/nomenclature of the goods with reference to the percentage of zinc and accordingly, the value of the goods may be considered at the time of assessment proceeding and on the basis of such difference, it cannot be said that the provisions of section 28-A of the Act were violated. He further submitted that in any view of the matter since the goods were accompanied by the requisite documents and the same were voluntarily submitted before the Check-post Officer, thus, no inference of any presumption of any attempt to evade tax can be drawn and as such penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) of the Act cannot be sustained. In suppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f this court while considering the seizure of the goods under section 13-A(6) of the Act has held as follows: "The power to seize goods is conferred on the officers of the Trade Tax Department where the goods are not accounted for by a dealer in his accounts or register or where they are not traceable to a bona fide dealer. Such is not the case set-up by the respondents. As regards avoidance of the tax, since the goods are not being imported in the State of Uttar Pradesh and the territory of the State of Uttar Pradesh is being used only for transport of goods, no tax leviable under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 or the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 by the authorities in U.P. can be avoided as no such tax is leviable. In our view, therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ples of the goods to ensure that the same was passed through the exist check-post and on that account the goods cannot be seized and the trip sheet cannot be denied." In the case of Godfrey Philips India Ltd., Ghaziabad v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. reported in [1992] UPTC 902, this court has held as follows: ". . . Security has been demanded only on the ground that the form No. XXXI was in the name of the applicant whereas it should have been in the name of the leasing company which had placed the order for supply of the machinery. Since all the documents accompanying the goods were in the name of the applicant, form No. XXXI was also issued by it and, therefore, there is no illegality in the same because the purpose of fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
