Expired e-sugam alone did not justify penalty where transit delay was caused by bad weather beyond control.

Penalty for expiry of an e-sugam at the time of interception was held unwarranted where the goods were otherwise covered by prescribed documents and the delay in transit was explained by bad weather and delayed transshipment. The reasoning accepted that the only non-compliance was the lapse of the e-sugam's validity by the time the vehicle was checked, while the transit delay was attributable to a reasonable cause beyond the assessee's control. On those facts, the contravention-and-penalty provision was not treated as attracting penalty, and the assessee's explanation was accepted.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty was leviable for carrying goods with an e-sugam that had expired by the time of interception, when the delay in transit was claimed to have been caused by bad weather beyond the assessee's control.

Analysis: The goods were admittedly covered by an e-sugam and were not being transported without prescribed documents. The only default was that the e-sugam had expired by the time the vehicle was intercepted. The explanation that the delay in arrival was due to bad weather and consequent delay in transshipment was accepted as a reasonable cause. On these facts, the Court agreed with the Tribunal that the case did not call for penalty under the provision governing contravention and penalty for non-compliance.

Conclusion: Penalty was not justified and the assessee's explanation was accepted.

---