9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act ) is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated July 17, 2006, relating to the assessment year 1998-99. Brief facts giving rise to the present revision are that the applicant established a new unit for the manufacturing of insecticides and pesticides and was holding eligibility certificate under section 4A of the Act and, therefore, its turnover of insecticides and pesticides were exempted. The applicant was also registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act ) and was entitled to purchase raw material at concessional rate of tax after issuing form C. During the year under consideration, the applicant had purchased isoprotone and melathine for Rs. 14,16,920 from outside the State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le of the aforesaid raw material and had also held that the default was a technical default, still had levied the penalty of Rs. 85,000 being six per cent, which was minimum penalty leviable. Being aggrieved by the order, the applicant filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), who vide order dated June 11, 2002 allowed the appeal in part. Though the levy of penalty has been upheld but it was reduced to Rs. 5,000 as token penalty. The first appellate authority has accepted the explanation of the applicant and held the default as a technical default only. Being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeal before the Tribunal. The applicant has not filed any appeal. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould not be levied. However, since the quantum of penalty sustained by the first appellate authority was small. Therefore, the applicant could not file any appeal before the Tribunal, otherwise, the penalty levied by the first appellate authority is also not liable to be sustained. Learned Standing Counsel relied upon the order of the Tribunal. He however, submitted that the applicant was authorised to use the raw materials only in the manufacturing of insecticides and pesticides and was not authorised to sell such raw materials. The action of the applicant was a clear case of violation of the provisions of clause (d) of section 10 of the Central Act. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
