9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced. On verification it was found that in the challans, registration number was printed in six digits. The serial number was stamped and there was a difference in the number. On these facts, the genuineness of the challans was doubted. A showcause notice was issued asking the dealer to produce the books of account for verification. Dealer could not produce the challan book for verification and submitted that it was lost. The Assistant Commissioner (Mobile Squad), Kanpur seized the goods and subsequently released on furnishing of security at Rs. 13,280. In pursuance of the seizure of the goods, a penalty proceeding under section 13A(3) of the Act was initiated. Before the assessing authority, again the books of account were not produced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that the difference was minor. Learned counsel for the dealer submitted that the difference stated by the first appellate authority, has been held minor and the findings of the Tribunal is the finding of fact, therefore, the present revision is liable to be dismissed. In my view, order of the Tribunal is not sustainable. The penalty under section 13A(4) of the Act is leviable in case, if the goods found omitted to have been entered in the copy, documents and register. What is to be seen is whether the goods were found entered in the books of account at the time of inspection of the goods. Admittedly, when the goods were inspected, bill was not available and only two challans were available, which were doubted by the Assistant Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority for verification of the entries of seized goods in the books of account. On these facts, the assessing authority has rightly drawn the inference that the goods were not entered in the books of account. The levy of penalty is justified. The goods were released on furnishing of security at Rs. 13,280. The assessing authority had not given any reason for the levy of penalty at Rs. 33,200. The Tribunal has also not adjudicated the issue relating to the quantum of penalty. In this view of the matter, the case is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the quantum of penalty. In the result, revision is allowed. Order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the quantum of penalty afresh in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
