TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 825
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mathur,J. Heard Mr. B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue/revisionist as well as Mr. Bipin Kushwaha, learned Advocate holding brief of Mr. Nishant Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent. The revenue has assailed the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal dated 13.06.2014, thereby upholding the order of the First Appellate Authority. It has been submitted by learned counsel for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arried on the stock transfer invoice being different from the goods declared in form 38, penalty was imposed. The revisionist preferred a first appeal before the additional Commissioner Grade-II, Ghaziabad, which was rejected by means of order dated 2.5.13. A second appeal was preferred before the Tribunal challenging the order of the first appellate authority. Before the Tribunal it was contend....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urned a finding that the pressure horns are used in tractors and further that no inquiry was conducted by the Department, nor any expert opinion sought as to whether the pressure horns could be used in tractors or not before levying penalty. They further concluded that no distinction could be made between electronic horns and pressure horns so as to levy penalty on the revisionist for transporting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he vehicle was intercepted by the mobile squad and amongst other items it was discovered that he was carrying pressure horns which according to the authority were not Tractor parts, and therefore it was concluded that the description of goods in the documents carried by the transporter were different from the goods found on physical inspection and therefore penalty was imposed as per provisions co....