9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated April 4, 2007 of the Tax Board whereby the Revenue's appeal was dismissed upholding the order of learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated March 28, 2005. Both the appellate authorities held that penalty under section 78(5) of the RST Act, 1994 on the respondent-assessee, owner of the goods, found in transit at the time of checking on September 15, 2003 through vehicle No. RJ-02-G-0852 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith rule 53 of the 1995 Rules, it is clear that penalty was liable to be imposed for importation of any taxable goods for sale without furnishing a declaration in form ST 18-A completely filled in all respects. The duty to fill and furnish the said form was imposed on the purchasing dealer. Therefore, section 78(5) as it stood prior to March 22, 2002 imposed penalty if possession or movement of go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;. The words 'in movement' do not find place in section 78(5) and therefore the expression 'person in charge of goods' under section 78(5) was wider than the expression 'person in charge of goods in movement' under section 78(2)(a). Consequently, the expression 'person in charge of the goods' under section 78(5) who is given an opportunity of being heard in the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e some opportunity being given to produce the same. . . Consequently this revision petition of the Revenue is allowed setting aside the orders passed by the appellate authorities as well as assessing authority dated March 28, 2005; the case is remanded back to the learned assessing authority for decision afresh of the said penalty proceedings in the light of aforesaid decisions. No costs. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
