TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (6) TMI 230
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... place to another place. The applicant is the owner of the Vehicle No. RJ-20/G-0125. It appears that M/s. IPCL, Vadodara sold Methyl Acrylate weighing 10.245 MT to M/s. CFCL, Haldia on 15.10.1992. The consignment was cleared through Excise Gate Pass No. 173. In respect of the aforesaid goods, G.R. No. 5021 was issued. The goods were loaded in Vehicle No. RJ 20/G-0125. When the aforesaid Vehicle reached at the Entry Check Post at Mugarra, District Mathura on 20.10.1992, the Driver of the Truck obtained a transit pass in Form 34, as prescribed under Section 28-B of the Act, read with Rule 87 of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"). The said transit pass was to be surrendered on Exit Check Post, namely, at Nauba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anation stating therein that the Transit pass was produced before the Naubatpur Check Post. The signature of the Driver was taken on a Register and the vehicle was permitted to proceed to the State of Bihar. By mistake of the Driver both the copies of the Transit pass were left. At the destination, the goods were delivered to M/s. CFCL in respect of which certificate of M/s. CFCL was filed. Likewise, in respect of the other consignment, dated 19.8.1992 sent through the same vehicle, lateron, vide letter no. 1748, dated 1.9.1992, Trade Tax Officer, Check Post, Varanasi informed the Trade Tax Officer, Mugarra, Mathura that though Transit Pass was produced, but neither the vehicle nor the goods were produced for verification. On receipt of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thority inferred that the goods have been sold inside the State of U.P. He valued the goods and levied penalty to the extent of 40% of the value of the goods in both the cases. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two penalty orders, the applicant filed two appeals before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Trade Tax, Mathura. Both the appeals have been rejected vide order dated 16.3.1994. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), the applicant filed two appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 24.7.2003, allowed both the appeals in part. The Tribunal has confirmed the levy of penalty, under Section 15(1)(a)(q) of the Act, but has reduced the quantum of penalty to 20% of value of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red from the factory against Excise Gate Pass No. 130. In the certificate issued by M/s. CFCL, the date of the receipt of the goods is not mentioned. A copy of the reply has not been filed. In both the cases, the reply relating to transaction dated 15.10.1992 has been filed. The receipts of the petrol pump relating to the purchase of diesel relating to the consignment dated 15.10.1992 appears to be of October, 1992 and do not relate to the consignment dated 19.8.1992. He submitted that copy of the Excise Gate Pass and Register 23-A, Part II have not been filed before the Check Post Officer and appears to have been filed before the Tribunal. In respect of the second consignment, he submitted that in the toll receipt neither the date nor the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sidered the rival submissions. No toll receipt and diesel receipt relating to the transaction dated 19.8.1992 have been filed alongwith the revision. The copy of the reply filed before the Check Post Officer in respect of the said transaction has also not been filed. The copy of the toll receipt, the diesel receipt and the reply relating to the subsequent transaction dated 15.10.1992 have been filed. The diesel receipts filed in respect of the second transaction also demonstrate that the explanation offered by the applicant is not correct. The photostat copies of Excise Gate and R.G.23-A have not been filed before the Check Post Officer and the First Appellate authority. The Excise Gate Pass and the Register in Form-23-A, Part II in resp....