Technical transport infraction justified only a token penalty where genuine destination and movement of goods were verified.

Where an intercepted consignment is supported by verified transport documents and the genuine origin and destination of the goods are established, a technical breach in movement requirements does not justify a heavy penalty. The text states that the goods were shown to have come from Orissa, were intended for Bihar, and were ultimately transported there after verification. On that basis, the penalty was confined to a token amount of Rs. 5,000, with any excess directed to be refundable to the assessee because no substantive evasion was shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed for the intercepted consignment of kendu leaves was liable to be reduced to a token amount in view of the verified destination of the goods and the technical nature of the infraction.

Analysis: The consignment was intercepted at the check-post, and the penalty proceeding was initiated against the transporter. The relevant papers were produced before the taxing authorities, and it was not disputed that the goods had in fact come from Orissa, were meant for transportation to Bihar, and were ultimately transported there after verification. On these facts, the only surviving question was the extent of penalty. Although there had been a technical violation of law, the circumstances showed that the goods were not involved in any substantive evasion, and a heavy penalty was therefore unnecessary.

Conclusion: The penalty was rightly reduced to a token amount of Rs. 5,000, and the excess amount, if any, was refundable to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a transport infraction is merely technical and the genuine movement and destination of the goods are verified, penalty may be confined to a token amount.

---