Revisional interference for perverse appellate findings upheld where check-post violations and suspicious invoice discrepancies indicated tax evasion.

A revisional authority may interfere where an appellate order is perverse and prejudicial to the Revenue. The record showed transport of goods in a public carrier with an invoice date inconsistent with the date of transportation, failure to check documents at the entry check-post, and an unsupported discrepancy in invoice value. The explanation that the person in charge was unaware of the statutory requirement did not excuse non-compliance. On those facts, restoration of the duty, penalty and interest was held justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional authority was justified in setting aside the appellate order and restoring the penalty imposed for non-compliance with check-post requirements and discrepancy in the documents accompanying the goods.

Analysis: The goods were transported in a public carrier with an invoice bearing a date wholly inconsistent with the date of transportation, and the documents were not checked at the entry check-post as required. The discrepancy in the value shown in the invoice was unsupported by material, and the explanation that the person in charge was unaware of the statutory requirement did not excuse non-compliance. The appellate authority's view was found to be perverse and prejudicial to the Revenue, justifying interference in revision.

Conclusion: The revisional authority was rightly held entitled to interfere and restore the order imposing duty, penalty and interest.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional authority may interfere with an appellate order where the appellate findings are perverse and the record discloses a deliberate attempt to evade tax by violating mandatory check-post and documentation requirements.

---