JUDGMENT Rajes Kumar J. - This revision under section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated February 26, 1994 relating to the assessment year 1987-88. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant imported the goods, which according to the applicant was zinc dross weighing 990 kgs., 350 pieces from M/s. Zenith Limited, Bombay, for Rs. 1,84,164.23. At the Check-post form XXXI, No. 574987, as required under section 28-A of the Act, along with bills and builties was submitted. The check-post officer seized the goods on the ground that on chemical examination it was found that the goods sought to be imported were not zinc dross but were zinc, inasmuch as 96.5 zinc was found while according to report in dross the percentage of zinc should be 82.67 per cent. The goods were subsequently released on furnishing security. In pursuance of the seizure, penalty proceeding under section 15-A(1)(o) of the Act was initiated. The applicant filed a reply, which was not accepted and a sum of Rs. 1,38,600 was levied towards penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) of the Act. The assessing authority estimated the value at Rs. 3,46,000. The first appeal filed by the applicant was allowed in part. The first appellate authority reduced the amount of penalty to Rs. 20,000. Against the order of the first appellate authority, the applicant as well as the Commissioner of Sales Tax filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated February 26, 1994 allowed both the appeals and remanded the case back to the assessing officer. The Tribunal remanded back the case on the ground that the applicant was not confronted with the chemical examination report and the applicant may be given opportunity to give proper reply in respect of such report, and, thereafter, if found necessary the opportunity of cross examination should be given. The Tribunal also observed that the officer concerned may be asked for treating the goods other than zinc dross. The Tribunal further observed that if the applicant is able to prove that the goods having 96.5 per cent purity are zinc dross, penalty should not be levied. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that remand of the case by the Tribunal is wholly erroneous. The Tribunal further observed that if the applicant is able to prove that the goods having 96.5 per cent purity are zinc dross, penalty should not be levied. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that remand of the case by the Tribunal is wholly erroneous. He submitted that for the purpose of the penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) of the Act it has to be seen whether it was of section 28-A of the Act and whether the applicant made an attempt to evade the payment of tax. He submitted that the goods were accompanied by declaration form as contemplated under section 28-A of the Act along with bills and builties. Therefore, there was no violation of section 28-A of the Act. According to him, there was a difference of opinion in respect of the description/nomenclature of the goods with reference to the percentage of zinc and accordingly, the value of the goods may be considered at the time of assessment proceeding and on the basis of such difference, it cannot be said that the provisions of section 28-A of the Act were violated. He further submitted that in any view of the matter since the goods were accompanied by the requisite documents and the same were voluntarily submitted before the Check-post Officer, thus, no inference of any presumption of any attempt to evade tax can be drawn and as such penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) of the Act cannot be sustained. In support of his contention he relied upon the decision of the division Bench of this court in the case of Tarseem Singh, Calcutta v. Trade Tax Officer reported in [2002] 126 STC 318; [2000] UPTC 19 and in the case of which has been followed in another case of Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Mohd. Maqsudul Haq reported in [2002] UPTC 654. I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below. The facts of the case are not in dispute, namely, that at the check-post form XXXI as required under section 28-A of the Act along with bills and builties were submitted. In the bill, description of the goods mentioned was zinc dross and accordingly in form XXXI builty and in form XXXV the description of the goods was stated as zinc dross. Therefore, declaration of goods in accordance with section 28-A of the Act was made. In the bill, description of the goods mentioned was zinc dross and accordingly in form XXXI builty and in form XXXV the description of the goods was stated as zinc dross. Therefore, declaration of goods in accordance with section 28-A of the Act was made. However, in case Check-post Officer was of the view that the description of the goods was wrong on the basis of the percentage of zinc in the goods in dispute which may have an effect on the value, the Check-post Officer could take a sample of the goods and refer the matter to the assessing authority for necessary action in the assessment proceeding but on the basis of slight difference in the nomenclature or the description of the goods, it cannot be said that the provisions of section 28-A of the Act have been violated and there was an attempt to evade tax. In the case of Tarseem Singh v. Trade Tax Officer [2002] 126 STC 318; [2000] UPTC 19, the division Bench of this court while considering the seizure of the goods under section 13-A(6) of the Act has held as follows : "The power to seize goods is conferred on the officers of the Trade Tax Department where the goods are not accounted for by a dealer in his accounts or register or where they are not traceable to a bona fide dealer. Such is not the case set-up by the respondents. As regards avoidance of the tax, since the goods are not being imported in the State of Uttar Pradesh and the territory of the State of Uttar Pradesh is being used only for transport of goods, no tax leviable under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 or the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 by the authorities in U.P. can be avoided as no such tax is leviable. In our view, therefore, the seizure of the goods only because the description thereof slightly differed was not permissible. The appropriate course for the respondent was to mention in the trip sheets, their opinion about the quality of the goods and if necessary, to take samples of the goods to ensure that the same passed through the exit check-post." Following the aforesaid division Bench, this court in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Mohd. The appropriate course for the respondent was to mention in the trip sheets, their opinion about the quality of the goods and if necessary, to take samples of the goods to ensure that the same passed through the exit check-post." Following the aforesaid division Bench, this court in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Mohd. Maqsudul Haq [2002] UPTC 654, held as follows : "It is not in dispute that the goods found on the truck were supari. The only dispute was in respect of its quality, i.e., whether it was chikni supari or ordinary supari. Admittedly, the goods were to pass out from the State of U.P. to another State and the State of U.P. is to be used as a corridor for transport of the goods. Therefore, I am of the view that the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the seizure of the goods only on the ground that the description of the goods is slightly different was not permissible. This question has fully been dealt with by a division Bench of this court in the case of Tarseem Singh v. Trade Tax Officer reported in [2002] 126 STC 318; [2000] UPTC 19, wherein it has been held that the seizure of the goods, only because the description thereof slightly differed, is not permissible and in such circumstances the appropriate course for the department was to mention in the trip sheets, their opinion about the quality of the goods and if necessary, to take samples of the goods to ensure that the same was passed through the exist check-post and on that account the goods cannot be seized and the trip sheet cannot be denied." In the case of Godfrey Philips India Ltd., Ghaziabad v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. reported in [1992] UPTC 902, this court has held as follows : "... Security has been demanded only on the ground that the form No. XXXI was in the name of the applicant whereas it should have been in the name of the leasing company which had placed the order for supply of the machinery. Security has been demanded only on the ground that the form No. XXXI was in the name of the applicant whereas it should have been in the name of the leasing company which had placed the order for supply of the machinery. Since all the documents accompanying the goods were in the name of the applicant, form No. XXXI was also issued by it and, therefore, there is no illegality in the same because the purpose of form No. XXXI is to bring the transaction to the notice of the department so that it may not remain unaccounted. It is now for the department on the basis of form No. XXXI so issued to tax the party which is liable for it. Therefore, it becomes immaterial whether the form was issued by the applicant who was consignee. According to the Revenue, form No. XXXI should have been issued by the leasing company which had placed the order. It hardly makes any difference because transaction has come to the notice of the department which is fully accounted for and it is the duty of the assessing authority to tax the person liable for the same." It is settled principle of law as held by the division Bench of this court in the case of Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd., Ghaziabad v. State of U.P. reported in [1983] 53 STC 54; [1983] UPTC 198 and also held by the apex court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Oriental Carbon Limited reported in [1997] NTN 105 that penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) of the Act cannot be levied unless a case of an attempt to evade the tax is made out. In the instant case as stated above, the goods were accompanied by the requisite documents as contemplated under section 28-A of the Act. The declaration was made voluntarily at the check-post and, therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of attempt to evade tax. The slight difference in the description of the goods cannot be a ground for seizure of the goods and for the levy of penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) of the Act. The difference in the description of the goods, if at all, has effect in the assessment proceeding, hence the same may be considered at the time of assessment. The slight difference in the description of the goods cannot be a ground for seizure of the goods and for the levy of penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) of the Act. The difference in the description of the goods, if at all, has effect in the assessment proceeding, hence the same may be considered at the time of assessment. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any justification for the levy of penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) of the Act and accordingly, I do not find any justification in remanding back the case to the assessing officer. Penalty is accordingly, quashed. In the result, revision is allowed. Order of Tribunal dated February 26, 1994 is set aside and the penalty levied under section 15-A(1)(o) of the Act is quashed.