2014 (7) TMI 1007

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... der before this court and that it was therefore that exhibit P2 request of the petitioner was not considered - As already stated, exhibit P1 order was rendered by the Tribunal on November 30, 2012 and the petitioner obtained a copy of the order in the first week of January, 2013. It is thereafter that the petitioner sought release of the vehicle. Evidently therefore if the Department has taken eff .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er imposing penalty of ₹ 13,13,830. Appeal filed before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) was rejected. Therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which resulted in exhibit P1 order. By this order the appellate authority allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty order and liberty was granted to the Intelligence Officer to conduct further investigation with re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ourt and that it was therefore that exhibit P2 request of the petitioner was not considered. As already stated, exhibit P1 order was rendered by the Tribunal on November 30, 2012 and the petitioner obtained a copy of the order in the first week of January, 2013. It is thereafter that the petitioner sought release of the vehicle. Evidently therefore if the Department has taken efforts, they too .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X