1996 (2) TMI 521

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....documents in regard to the following two consignments were not in order: (a) Consignment of 56 bales of cotton yarn belonging to the appellant in STA No. 8 of 1994. The pro forma Invoice dated September 1, 1990 tendered by the driver showed the appellant as the consignor and consignee and the value of the consignment as Rs. 22,176 and the transportation was by way of stock transfer from Bombay to Bangalore. Another documents accompanying the said consignment (that is bill No. 180 dated July 13, 1990) under which the appellant had purchased the goods showed the value of 98 bales as Rs. 3,84,650 and corresponding value for 56 bales was Rs. 2,19,800. Therefore, he inferred that the documents were not in order. (b) In regard to another consig....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the second appellant was the consignor and consignee ; and by mistake, it was noted in the bill as "delivery to Pramodh Silk Industry, Bombay" and that there was no intention to evade tax. They also contended that these facts were not explained to the check-post officer leading to levy of penalty. The appellate authority, before whom necessary documents were produced, examined the same and the documents accompanying the consignments and accepted the said explanations. Consequently, he set aside the orders of penalty and levied a nominal penalty of Rs. 1,000 for not explaining these facts to the check-post officer. 5.. The revisional authority, in exercise of his powers of revision under section 22A of the Act, issued show cause notice da....