1988 (8) TMI 442

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d 8.10.1982 passed by the Collector of 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, su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....egional Bench held the absence of signature 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 sta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ouchers were not at all prepared or that the preparation 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 ....