Documentary defect explained as clerical error; revisional interference with nominal penalty was unjustified.

A revisional order cannot be sustained where documentary discrepancies in consignment papers are satisfactorily explained as clerical mistake or inadvertence. The record showed that the consignments were supported by the relevant original invoices and transport documents, and the appellate authority accepted that there was no intention to evade tax while imposing only a nominal penalty for failure to explain the position at the check-post. On those facts, the appellate order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue, so interference in revision and restoration of the original penalty orders was unjustified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional authority was justified in restoring the penalty orders on the ground that the documents accompanying the consignments were defective and whether the appellate authority's order granting only nominal penalty called for interference.

Analysis: The documents accompanying the consignments showed that the first appellant had enclosed not only the pro forma invoice but also the original purchase invoice, which supported the explanation that the value in the pro forma invoice was wrongly typed due to clerical error. In the second case, the lorry receipt and accompanying documents showed that the goods were moving by stock transfer and that the reference to delivery at Bombay was an ness in the invoice. The appellate authority had examined the documents and accepted that there was no intention to evade tax, while still imposing a nominal penalty for not explaining the matter at the check-post. On these facts, the appellate authority's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, and the mere failure to explain the position to the check-post officer did not by itself justify revision.

Conclusion: The revisional authority was not justified in interfering with the appellate authority's order; the restoration of the original penalty orders could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional order cannot be sustained where the documentary defect is satisfactorily explained as a clerical mistake or inadvertence and the record does not show an intention to evade tax or prejudice to the Revenue.

---