2017 (5) TMI 658

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....15, claiming following substantial questions of law:- (a) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, AETC, ICC (Exports), Shambu is competent Designated Officer to impose penalty under Section 51 of the PVAT Act, 2005? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, penalty under Section 51(6)/51(7)(c) has been rightly imposed when there was no attempt to evade the tax and the substituted sub-section was made effective from 15.11.2013 particularly when the sale invoices furnished were true and genuine? (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was imperative for the Hon'ble Tribunal to have noticed, considered and determined the written submissions made before the Enquiring Office....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....entrance gate on the side of the road wherein the office was setup. He was not stopped or any signal to stop was made at ICC. He enquired from the policeman standing nearby at Toll Plaza at ICC. The driver and the policeman both reached ICC voluntarily. He parked the car near the gate and voluntarily produced invoices dated 07.10.2008 and 08.10.2008. The Detaining Officer detained the vehicle and the Enquiring Officer imposed penalty of Rs.  1,05,881/- vide order dated 22.10.2008. The appellant company is maintaining computerized system of accounts and the sales invoices in question were computer generated invoices. In this system, the moment an invoice is generated from computer, it is simultaneously posted in the various heads of acc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... argument was raised by the appellant-company before the Tribunal. Thus, no finding has been recorded by the Tribunal on this issue. With regard to substantial questions of law (b) to (d), findings of fact have been recorded by the Tribunal. It has been categorically recorded by the Tribunal that the assessee had placed reliance on the affidavit of Mr. Sarabjit Singh, driver who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. He himself had admitted through his affidavit that he had crossed the ICC without generating the information. It was further recorded that it was not the first transaction and even prior to that, the goods were being taken through that way. Thus, the mere excuse that the driver did not know about the location of the ICC,....