1996 (10) TMI 438

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... No. 5/91/ST/Jhunjhunu. 2.. As the non-petitioner refused to accept the notice issued by this Tribunal and as neither the non-petitioner nor any one for and on his behalf appeared the matter was heard ex parte. 3.. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4.. The facts in brief are that on August 6, 1989 the petitioner intercepted tanker No. DIG 3585 on the Jaipur-Delhi Road at the Octroi Check Post, Jaipur. The driver of the tanker had with him goods receipt No. 155 dated August 4, 1989 issued by the transporter and bill No. 1482 dated August 4, 1989 issued by the non-petitioner according to which the tanker contained 9,910 litres of til oil valued at Rs. 1,93,245. On physical verification, going by the colour, the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....il adulterated with til oil or vice versa. It was treated as a case only of overvaluation. The Board held that the non-petitioner did nothing prohibited by any law and that only if he had undervalued the goods would there be evasion of tax. 7.. According to the petitioner the following main questions of law arise: (i) whether the Board was right in upholding the order of the D.C. (Appeals) quashing the levy of penalty under section 22A(7) of the 1954 Act? and (ii) whether the Board was right in law in holding that there was no evasion or offence under section 22A(7) of the 1954 Act even if the commodity in question is different from that mentioned in the bill and in the goods receipt? 8.. It is not necessary to reproduce section....