YASHWANT VARMA,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Suyash Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) This revision emanates from proceedings for imposition of penalty referable to Section 4B(5) of the 1948 Act. The allegation against the revisionist was that although he had purchases mollases at a concessional rate for the purposes of utilization in functions enlisted in his registration certificate, the same had been sold and diverted to other uses. This led the Assessing Authority to estimate that 90% of the mollases purchased, had been diverted. He consequently proceeded to levy penalty of Rs. 69,424/-. The assessee was accorded relief by the First Appellate Authority. However, in the Second Appeal preferred by the Department, the Tribunal after taking into consideration all relevant facts has come to conclude and hold that the diversion of purchased material could have at best been pegged at 30%. It accordingly held the revisionist liable to pay a sum of Rs. 53,996 as penalty. The orders itself being based upon facts as gathered by the authorities and the Tribunal does not give rise to any question of law.
(3.) The revision is consequently dismissed.;