Judgment :- ISMAIL, J. It was the admitted case that the petitioner imported the splints under concessional rate of taxes with declaration in Form C that they would be used for manufacturing matches in its own factory. Contrary to the declaration, equally admittedly the petitioner sold the splints to other person. In view of this, the petitioner was found guilty of s. 10(d) r/w S. 6(3)(d) of the Central ST Act and a penalty was imposed on it under S. 10(A) thereof. It is the correctness of this levy of penalty that is challenged in this petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner repeatedly contends that the registration certificates granted to the petitioner enabled it to import splints both for resale as well as for use in the manufacture and that so long as the registration certificate authorised the petitioner to import the goods for resale, it would not be found guilty of violation on the ground that it re-sold the splits themselves. We are of the opinion that this contention is misconceived. The contents of the registration certificate have to be read with declaration contained in the form C for the purpose of finding out whether there has been violation or not. In this case, as we have, pointed out already, there is an admission that the splints were imported under form C for manufacture of instates in its own factory, but they were actually resold. Consequently this will constitute violation of S. 8(3)(b) read with the undertaking or declaration in the C form licence. The result is that S. 10(4) and s. 10(A) of the Central ST Act are attracted and the levy of penalty was therefore, proper. Hence the petition is dismissed.