S. N. TIWARI, J. Since common questions of law arise in both the revisions, they are being disposed of by the present common order. 2. These revisions are directed against the order dated November 25, 1992 dismissing appeals No. 228 of 1993 and 229 of 1993 whereby imposition of penalty under section 4-B (5) of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") levied upon the revisionist was upheld by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench-I, Meerut. 3. The revisionist is a registered dealer for the manufacture and sale of transformers and also for its repairs. Recognition certificate for purchase of raw materials at concessional rates was issued to the revisionist. It was effective from October 30, 1980. It the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 the revisionist purchased raw materials after furnishing certificate in form 3-B of the Act. The assessing authority held that the raw materials so acquired were used in contravention of the provisions of section 4-B in the repair of transformers instead of in manufacturing the same. Consequently the penalty of Rs. 46,000 and Rs. 34,000 were imposed in the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 respectively. 4. The appeals against this order were filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Trade Tax, which had been rejected. Feeling aggrieved, second appeals were filed before the Trade Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal also dismissed the appeals. Feeling aggrieved these revisions have been preferred. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length. 5. The first question for determination is whether the revisionist used the raw material obtained on the basis of form 3-B against the provisions of section 4-B and against the condition of recognition certificate. The Tribunal also dismissed the appeals. Feeling aggrieved these revisions have been preferred. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length. 5. The first question for determination is whether the revisionist used the raw material obtained on the basis of form 3-B against the provisions of section 4-B and against the condition of recognition certificate. The relevant provisions of section 4-B is reproduced as follows : " Section 4-B : Special relief to certain manufacturers.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 3, 3-A, 3-AAAA and 3-D, - (a) Where any goods liable to tax under sub-section (1) of section 3-D are purchased by a dealer who is liable to tax on the turnover of first purchases, under that sub-section or where any goods are purchased by any dealer in circumstances in which such a dealer is liable to purchase tax in respect thereof under section 3-AAAA and the dealer holds a recognition certificate issued under sub-section (2) in respect thereof, he shall be liable in respect of those goods to tax at such concessional rate, or be wholly or partly exempt from tax, whether unconditionally or subject to the conditions and restrictions specified in that behalf, as may be notified in the Gazette by the State Government in that behalf : . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) Where any goods liable to tax under any other provisions of this Act are sold by a dealer to another dealer and such other dealer furnishes to the selling dealer in the prescribed form and manner a certificate to the effect that he holds a recognition certificate issued under sub-section (2) in respect thereof, the selling dealer shall be liable in respect of those goods to tax at such concessional rate, or be wholly or partly exempt from tax, whether unconditionally or subject to the conditions and restrictions specified in that behalf, as may be notified in the Gazette by the State Government in that behalf. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) Where a dealer requires any goods, referred to in sub-section (1) for use in the manufacture by him, in the State of any notified goods, or in the packing of such notified goods manufactured or processed by him, and such notified goods are intended to be sold by him in the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of export out of India, he may apply to the assessing authority in such form and manner and within such period as may be prescribed, for the grant of a recognition certificate in respect thereof; and if the applicant satisfies such requirement and conditions as may be prescribed, the assessing authority shall grant to him in respect of such goods a recognition certificate in such form, and subject to such conditions, as may be prescribed. Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, - (a) goods required for use in manufacture shall mean raw materials, processing materials, machinery, plant, equipment, consumable stores, spare parts, accessories, components, sub-assemblies, fuels or lubricants; and (b) notified goods means such goods as may, from time to time, be notified by the State Government in that behalf. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5) Where a dealer in whose favour a recognition certificate has been granted under sub-section (2) has used the goods, after their purchase after payment of the tax at concessional rate under this section or, as the case may be, without payment of the tax, for a purpose other than that for which the recognition certificate was granted or has otherwise disposed of the said goods, such dealer shall be liable to pay as penalty such amount as the assessing authority may fix - (a) not less than the difference between the amount of the tax on the sale or purchase of such goods, payable under any provision of this Act and the amount of the tax payable at concessional rate under this section, where the goods are purchased after paying the tax at concessional rate; and (b) not less than the amount of tax payable under section 3, section 3-A, section 3-AA, or section 3-D, as the case may be, where the goods are purchased without payment of the tax, but not exceeding three times the amount of such difference or of the tax, as the case may be. " 6. Rule 25-A of the U. P. Trade Tax Rules provides that an application for recognition shall be moved in form No. XVIII. It further provides that if the Sales Tax Officer is satisfied that the particulars contained in the application are correct and complete, he shall grant a recognition certificate in form No. XIX to the dealers. Form No. XIX contains the conditions of the grant of certificate. Condition No. 3 specifies that the goods purchased on the strength of the recognition certificate shall be used only by the recognized dealer only for the manufacture of notified goods. 7. Notification No. ST-II-7551/x - 9 (1)-76 - U. P. Act XV/48-Order-76, dated December 31, 1976, is a notification issued under section 4-B of the Act, annexure I thereof, provides the list of notified goods referred to in section 4-B. Transformers are mentioned at serial No. 17 of the aforesaid list of notified goods. 8. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that since the revisionist manufactured parts of transformers for sale and sold them to the U. P. State Electricity Board it cannot be said that the revisionist contravened the conditions of recognition certificate. 8. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that since the revisionist manufactured parts of transformers for sale and sold them to the U. P. State Electricity Board it cannot be said that the revisionist contravened the conditions of recognition certificate. Copy of the recognition certificate issued to the revisionist has been filed. Condition No. 3 of the aforesaid certificate is stated to have been contravened. It is further stated that revisionist has used the goods obtained at concessional rate for a purpose other than that for which recognition certificate was granted. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the recognition certificate has been issued for the manufacture of goods for sale. The revisionist has, therefore, committed no violation. The spare parts of transformers manufactured and sold by the revisionist does not amount to violation of section 4-B or the conditions of recognition certificate. 9. From the perusal of section 4-B (5) of the Act it is clear that penalty must be imposed upon a dealer who used the goods obtained at concessional rate for a purpose other than that for which recognition certificate was granted. The authorities below held concurrently that the goods purchased by the dealer at concessional rate on the strength of recognition certificate have not been used for the manufacture of notified goods. It was held that the revisionist has utilised the raw material for manufacture of parts of transformers instead of manufacturing the transformers. According to the notification dated December 31, 1976 only transformers are included in the list of notified goods. Spare parts or components of transformers required for repair of transformers have not been included in the list of notified goods. There is no justification to add the words "spare parts" also in the list of notified goods. Instead of using the raw materials purchased at concessional rates acquired at the strength of recognition certificates were admittedly used in the manufacture of component parts which were used in repair of transformers and not in the manufacture of transformers. The use of raw materials for the purpose other than for manufacture of notified goods would attract penalty provided under section 4-B of the Act. 10. The argument that the revisionist has not violated the conditions of recognition certificate is also not tenable. The use of raw materials for the purpose other than for manufacture of notified goods would attract penalty provided under section 4-B of the Act. 10. The argument that the revisionist has not violated the conditions of recognition certificate is also not tenable. The condition No. 3 of the form No. XIX of the Trade Tax Rules clearly provides that the goods purchased on the basis of recognition certificate could be used only for the manufacture of notified goods. The condition No. 3 in the copy of the recognition certificate appears to be illegible. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that according to the recognition certificate issued to the revisionist he could utilise the raw material for the manufacture of the goods for sale. According to the standing counsel it stipulates that the raw materials purchased at concessional rate could be used for manufacture of notified goods. The relevant portion of the copy of the recognition certificate appears illegible. Form No. XIX prescribed under the Rules supports the contention of the standing counsel. However, it may be added that section 4-B (5) of the Act provides penalty if the goods purchased at concessional rate are used for a purpose other than that for which the recognition certificate was granted. In the section there is no mention about the breach of the conditions of the recognition certificate. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist has, therefore, no force. 11. Learned counsel for the revisionist further argued that since the revisionist has used the spare parts in repair of transformers and deposited the trade tax on the sale of spare parts used in repair, it cannot be held that the applicant deliberately committed breach of section 4-B (5) of the Act and is liable to penalty thereunder. It was a bona fide act, since there was no mens rea, no penalty, could, therefore, be imposed. 12. Theses arguments cannot be accepted because in the relevant section the word "knowing", "deliberately" or "intentionally" does not find place. If the mens rea was intended to be imported in the relevant provision these words would have been inserted in the section, as has been done in various sub-sections of section 15-A (1 ). In section 15-A (1) (g) these words were not mentioned. If the mens rea was intended to be imported in the relevant provision these words would have been inserted in the section, as has been done in various sub-sections of section 15-A (1 ). In section 15-A (1) (g) these words were not mentioned. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kishori Lal Rakesh Kumar v. Commissioner, Sales Tax [1985] 59 STC 323; 1985 UPTC 211 while interpreting this clause held that mens rea is not necessary for imposing penalty. It was further observed that the language of enactment has to be considered and it is not to be presumed as an ingredient of the default simply because it constitutes a penalty provision. Though mens rea is an essential ingredient of an offence under the common law but it can be excluded by a statute. 13. The observation of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1970] 25 STC 211; AIR 1970 SC 253 relates to section 25 (1) (a) read with section 9 (1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, which creates offence governed by the Criminal Procedure Code to be tried by Magistrate, Ist Class. The observation of the honourable Supreme Court with reference to section 25 (2) of the Orrisa Sales Tax Act referred to above could not be made applicable in regard to penalty envisaged under section 15a (1) (g) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, which provide for penalty. The learned counsel for the applicant referred to the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. [1970] 25 STC 211 (SC); AIR 1970 1970 SC 253. In view of the observation of Division Bench in the case of Kishori Lal Rakesh Kumar, Mandi [1985] 59 STC 323 (All.); 1985 UPTC 211, the applicant cannot get any help from the observation made by the honourable Supreme Court in the abovenoted case. 14. In the case of R. S. Joshi, Sales Tax Officer, Gujarat v. Ajit Mills Ltd. [1977] 40 STC 497 (SC); 1979 UPTC 171, following observation was made : " The classical view that no mens rea, no crime has long ago been eroded and several laws in India and abroad, especially regarding economic crimes and departmental penalties, have created severe punishments even where the offences have been defined to exclude mens rea. Therefore, the contention that section 37 (1) fastens a heavy liability regardless of fault has no force in depriving the forfeiture of the character of penalty. " 15. In the case of Director of Enforcement v. MCT. M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. JT 1996 (1) SC 79, the honourable Supreme Court after quoting following passage from "corpus Juris Secundum", Volume 85, at page 580, paragraph 1023 expressed its agreement with the view expressed therein : " A penalty imposed for a tax delinquency is a civil obligation, remedial and coercive in its nature, and is far different from the penalty for a crime or a fine or forfeiture provided as punishment for the violation of criminal or penal laws. " 16. The counsel for the applicant referred the decision of this Court given in the case of Sahni Engineering Works v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1994 UPTC 70 and in the case of Metal Processors (India) v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1994 UPTC 754. Both the cases are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the above I feel that the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is of no help to the applicant. 17. It was argued that the assessing authority had arbitrarily levelled maximum penalty provided under the law whereas the penalty could have been levelled for an amount which was equal to the tax saved or could be three tines thereof. No reasons was given for imposing maximum penalty. It was argued that the amount of penalty is arbitrary and illegal because maximum penalty was imposed, whereas in the circumstances of the case the penalty should have been limited only to an amount equal to the amount of tax saved. The dealer-revisionist has manufactured transformer parts which it used in repair instead of manufacture of transformer. It is further pointed out that it has deposited tax, payable on the amount of spare parts sold. It was further pointed out that the department also did not point out this defect earlier. 18. Neither the assessing authority nor the appellate authorities have considered reasonableness of the amount of penalty. The discretion in fixing the quantum of penalty cannot be exercised arbitrarily but has to be reasonable and just. It was further pointed out that the department also did not point out this defect earlier. 18. Neither the assessing authority nor the appellate authorities have considered reasonableness of the amount of penalty. The discretion in fixing the quantum of penalty cannot be exercised arbitrarily but has to be reasonable and just. Section 4-B (5) provides that the penalty shall not be less than the difference between the amount of tax on the sale or purchase of the goods purchased, on the basis of recognition certificates and the amount of tax payable under any other provision of this Act, but shall not exceed three times of the amount of such difference. No reason has been given why maximum penalty was justified in the present case. Even during assessment proceeding of the dealer, the assessing authority could not point out the alleged breach for which penalty was levied. It is, therefore, clear that, in the circumstances of this case, the penalty should have been equal to the amount of tax saved and not more. 19. In view of the above, both revisions are allowed in part. It is directed that the amount of penalty should be reduced to the amount equal to the difference between the amount of tax on the sale or purchase of the goods, payable under section 4-B of the Act and the amount of tax payable under any other provisions of this Act. The Tribunal shall determine the amount of penalty payable by the revisionist in the light of above under section 11 (8) of the U. P. Trade Tax Act. Rest of the revisions are dismissed. Cost on the parties. Let copies of the judgment be sent to the concerned Tribunal without delay. .