JUDGMENT PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - The present revision is directed against the order dated June 23, 1999 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Varanasi in Second Appeal No. 609 of 1992 for the assessment year 1991-92 under section 13A(4) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The applicant is a transporter and engaged in the business of transporting the goods on hire basis from one place to another. Three packets of ready-made hosiery were booked with the applicant - company for the purposes of transportation from one place to another. The entry pass was obtained while entering in the State of U.P. Act the exit check-post, the goods were seized by the check-post authorities on the ground that the goods are different. Penalty proceedings were initiated under section 13A(4) of the Act. The assessing officer by the order dated October 23, 1991 estimated the value of ready-made hosiery and woollen caps at Rs. 39,810 and levied the penalty to the tune of Rs. 15,958. The said order was set aside in appeal by the first appellate authority on the ground that the penalty order has been passed on a printed pro forma. There is no discussion in the penalty order and it is in brief. The first appellate authority was of the opinion that it does not appeal to reason that a person will dispose of three nags (three pkts) from the full loaded truck. He was of the opinion that the goods were in accordance with the declaration made by the dealer. Apart from the above, the names of the consignor and consignee were also shown and as such he was of the opinion that there was no justification to levy the penalty. The said order has been set aside by the Tribunal in the appeal filed by the Department. However, the quantum of penalty was fixed at Rs. 17,000. In memo of revision, the following questions of law have been framed : "(a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in confirming the penalty under section 13A(4) at Rs. 17,000 while A.O. levied penalty only at Rs. 10,068. (b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances, can penalty under section 13A(4) be levied on the applicant ? 17,000 while A.O. levied penalty only at Rs. 10,068. (b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances, can penalty under section 13A(4) be levied on the applicant ? (c) Whether case of the penalty under section 13A(4) has been made out ?" Considered the respective submission of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Tribunal has proceeded to uphold the penalty order on the ground that in pursuance of Notification No. 6561 dated September 12, 1986 all the ready-made garments except the woollen garments are taxable at four per cent with effect from September 15, 1986. The hosiery of all kind has been made taxable with effect from November 1, 1981 at four per cent. The Tribunal concluded that in view of the notification dated September 12, 1986 the ready garments are unclassified goods and were liable to be taxed at Rs. 8 per cent. A bare perusal of the order of the Tribunal would show that the Tribunal has failed to address itself to the various aspects of the penalty order which were pointed out by the first appellate authority in its order. The finding recorded by the first appellate authority that the penalty order was passed without application of mind and without there being any discussion, on printed form. This aspect of the case was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal while reversing the order of the first appellate authority. The question remains as to whether there was intention on the part of the dealer - applicant to avoid the payment of tax. The said finding was recorded in favour of the applicant by the first appellate authority which has not been set aside by the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the order passed by the first appellate authority. It was incumbent upon the Tribunal to consider all aspects of the case which were taken into consideration by the first appellate authority, before reversing the order. Viewed as above, I find sufficient force in the revision. No case for levying the penalty has been made out. It is strange to note that Rs. 15,928 (wrongly mentioned as Rs. 10,068 in the question) was levied by the assessing authority, but the Tribunal has fixed at Rs. 17,000 which is arbitrary. The revision succeeds and is allowed. Viewed as above, I find sufficient force in the revision. No case for levying the penalty has been made out. It is strange to note that Rs. 15,928 (wrongly mentioned as Rs. 10,068 in the question) was levied by the assessing authority, but the Tribunal has fixed at Rs. 17,000 which is arbitrary. The revision succeeds and is allowed. The order dated June 23, 1999 is hereby set aside and the order of the first appellate authority is restored. No order as to costs.