- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) The challenge in the present revision is to assessment proceedings taken for the purposes of imposition of penalty by the assessing authority in respect of certain import of consignments of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) by the revisionist. The imposition of penalty has been affirmed by the Tribunal in second appeal. The case of the revisionist was that it was engaged in the manufacture and sale of IMFL and its main unit of manufacture was in the State of Madhya Pradesh. For the purposes of effecting sale in the State of U.P., the revisionist is stated to have established a Bonded Warehouse. The IMFL upon deposit of import fee and under cover of import permits entered the State of U.P. The goods in question prior to being unloaded at the Bonded Warehouse are stated to have been intercepted when it was found that they were not accompanied by Form-31. On the basis of the above lapse proceedings for imposition of penalty were initiated against the revisionist. The assessing authority by an order dated 25 November 1998 imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,44,687/-. This was reduced by the first appellate authority in appeal to Rs. 1,30,500/-. This order of the first appellate authority was challenged before the Tribunal which has confirmed the same by its order dated 24 January 2006.
(3.) From a reading of the order of the Tribunal, this Court finds that what has primarily weighed with it while upholding the order of the first appellate authority is that admittedly the goods at the time of interception were not accompanied with Form - 31. The Tribunal recorded that insofar as the consignments which formed the subject matter of Appeal No. 431 of 2003 is concerned, Form - 31 was furnished subsequently. It has held that a deliberate attempt was therefore made in order to evade the payment of tax.;