- (1.) LEAVE granted. None appears for the respondent despite service of notice.
(2.) IN these appeals what is under challenge is the order of the Gujarat High Court dated 8/7/2008, whereby the High Court has affirmed the findings of the Tribunal dated 15/12/2006. We have considered the findings recorded by the Tribunal. In the last paragraph of its judgment, the Tribunal came to a definite finding that the present was basically a case of bona fide mistake which was subsequently rectified. The aforesaid finding also came to be upheld by the High Court as against which the present appeals are filed. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and on going through the record, we are of the considered opinion that in these appeals no interference is called for in our hands, particularly, in view of the ratio of the decision of this Court in Union of India Vs. Rajasthan Spg. and Wvg. Mills. This Court has observed that the penalty under S. 11-AC, as the word suggests, is "punishment for an act of deliberate deception by the assessee with the intent to evade duty by adopting any of the means mentioned in the section" (SCC p. 459, para 29).
(3.) SINCE the present is a case of bona fide mistake and because there was a categorical finding that there was no intention to evade tax by the respondent, therefore, in terms of the ratio laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision, no interference is called for.;