Withholding sale-price particulars can attract penalty for short levy, though penalty may be reduced on the facts.

Withholding factory-gate sale-price particulars and revised price-list details, despite repeated departmental calls, was treated as attracting penal liability where the non-disclosure contributed to short levy, even though the assessee disputed the valuation method. The Tribunal held that approval of the price list did not justify withholding material data needed for assessment. On quantum, it considered the unsettled state of valuation law, conflicting approaches at the time, and the limited extent of actual evasion, and reduced the penalty substantially.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty was leviable for withholding sale-price particulars and non-furnishing of revised price-list details leading to short levy. (ii) Whether the penalty amount required reduction in the circumstances of the case.

Issue (i): Whether penalty was leviable for withholding sale-price particulars and non-furnishing of revised price-list details leading to short levy.

Analysis: The assessee was repeatedly asked to disclose the factory-gate sale price and the deductions claimed towards post-manufacturing expenses so that the price list could be approved on the basis accepted by the High Court. Instead of furnishing the particulars or seeking clarification, the assessee persisted in its own view and did not supply the required details. The Tribunal held that approval of the price list could not be used to justify withholding the material data called for by the department, and that such non-disclosure, if resulting in short levy, attracted the penal provisions.

Conclusion: Penalty was rightly attracted and the assessee's liability to penalty was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty amount required reduction in the circumstances of the case.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that valuation law was unsettled at the material time and that the dispute arose in a period when the High Courts and the department were operating under conflicting approaches. It also noted that the duty demand had not been confirmed and that the actual evasion reflected by the record did not justify the penalty imposed. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considered a substantial reduction appropriate.

Conclusion: The penalty was reduced from Rs. 3.25 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of reduction in penalty, while the finding of penal liability was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee withholds essential sale-price particulars and revised price-list details despite repeated calls by the department, resulting in short levy, penal liability is attracted even if the assessee disputes the valuation method, though the penalty may be moderated on the facts.

---