2012 (10) TMI 409
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s been deleted. Following substantial questions of law have been claimed:- "i) Under the facts and circumstances of the case, whether non furnishing of the set of documents viz. Bill/invoice and GR at the ICC in respect of the consignment of 370 bags of 'Bidis' was not indicative of an attempt to evade tax by the respondents? ii) Under the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the plea of the respondents that invoice No.1900505 was inadvertently left by the driver in the truck, was not an afterthought to save them from the penalty, after detection of the default with an intention to evade tax? iii) Under the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the findings rendered by the Tribunal in the impugned order are pervers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2011, Annexure A.3, the appeal was dismissed. The respondent filed second appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 29.9.2011, the Tribunal allowed the appeal. As a result, the penalty order was set aside. Hence this appeal by the State. 3. The Tribunal while deleting the penalty came to the conclusion that goods receipt No.157 dated 26.7.2010 in question contained the particulars of 370 bags. It was also recorded that the entries were made in Form ELTA-12 dated 26.7.2010 as well as declaration in Form-85 wherein there was an entry with regard to 370 bags of Desai bidi. Further, the Tribunal observed that the driver had left the invoice No.1900505 covering 370 bags in the vehicle due to oversight and on being pointed out by the officer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The goods receipt No.157 dated 26.7.2010 contains the particulars of 370 bags, which are in question. In the Bidis Dispatching Report dated 26.7.2010 purportedly issued by Desai Brothers Limited Kamareddy, the details of 370 bags have been given. The penalty has been imposed under Section 51(7)(b) of the Act on the ground that the bill and GR relating to 357 bags meant for Maisarkhana were presented at the ICC, whereas the bill and GR for 370 bags meant for Abohar, which falls on the way, were withheld by the driver intentionally to evade tax on the consignment of 370 bags, though the aforereferred documents speak volume of the fact that in no cirucmstance, the driver could hold back the documents pertaining to 370 bags as in the event of....