TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (8) TMI 442
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Customs (Appeals), Bombay. 2. The subject of challenge in this appeal is the penalty of Rs. 500/-imposed on the appellant. This penalty came to be imposed on the ground that the voucher prepared in respect of a sale transaction of 25 pairs of gold ear rings did not contain the signature of the purchaser. 3. Shri Wazifdar, appearing for the appellant, submitted for a technical breach which is of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the transferee is only a mere irregularity and no mala fide can be imputed, Conscious disregard of statutory obligation was not found. 4. Shri Prabhu appearing for the Collector, however, supported the orders passed by the authorities below on the ground that the purchaser when questioned did not state that voucher had been prepared and he only stated that he forgot to take the voucher from t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eparation of the voucher was subsequent to the seizure of the gold ear rings The purchaser did not state that vouchers were not prepared at all. His statement was he forgot to take the voucher. It is not clear how the authorities below could construe from that statement that the vouchers were not prepared. They did find the vouchers when they visited the Gold Dealer's premises. They must have ....