9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1743X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal ) in Appeal No. 59 of 2011. It was admitted on 5.9.2012 to consider following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the penalty under Section 51(7) (b) merely on account of clerical mistake in the documents which were produced voluntarily at ICC, without establishing any attempt to evade the tax? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in not following its own judgment on the similar issue despite the fact that it was delivered by the same Member? 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved, as narrated in the appeal, may be notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 28.11.2011, Annexure A.7, the appeal also met the same fate. Hence the present appeal by the assessee. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that two invoices No. 10137174 and 10137172 dated 13.11.2009 (Pages 11/A and 12/A of the paper book) had been sent by the appellant alongwith the goods. Through the second invoice i.e. 10137172, 23 colour TV sets had been sent from its office at Greater Noida to Ludhiana but due to mistake in the computer, the destination was mentioned as Lucknow whereas the GR which was sent alongwith the invoice showed the destination as Ludhiana. 4. On the aforesaid premises, it was argued that in case there was attempt to evade tax, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied in not following its own judgment on the similar issue despite the fact that it was delivered by the same member? 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. The explanation furnished by the appellant appears to be bonafide and under the circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any attempt to evade tax. The goods in question were transported from Greater Noida to Ludhiana whereas in the documents, it was mentioned as Lucknow. The appellant had submitted that the Code mentioned in the computer for Lucknow was 'LUC' whereas for Ludhiana it was 'LUD'. It was by mistake that 'LUC' was pressed and printed instead of 'LUD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
