TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 937X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts are that on June 20, 1999, six trucks loaded with C.R. coils were parked near Mahavir Dharam Kanta and Pooja Cane Crusher Service on the U.P. border. The Trade Tax Officer, Mobile Squad, Unit-A, Ghaziabad arrived there and on enquiry found that the driver/person-in-charge of the vehicles had no papers whatsoever in respect of the goods. The goods were detained and show cause notices were issued to the respective drivers to show cause by June 25, 1999 why the goods be not seized. Thereafter on June 25, 1999 Gajendra Pal Sharma claiming to be the proprietor of M/s. Godawari Steels (the revisionist) filed objection. His contention was that it was on the 5th June, 1999 that he placed orders for these goods on three parties of Delhi, namely, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 40 per cent of the value of the goods. The revisionist made a representation to the Assistant Commissioner (Enforcement) who upheld the seizure and the demand of a security. According to him during the departmental investigations it was revealed that the goods in question had been purchased by one M/s. K.K. Industrial Corporation, Faridabad from M/s. Steel Authority of India, Bhokaro from where the goods were transported by rail up to Ballabhgarh railway station and it was from there that the goods were loaded in the aforesaid trucks and, therefore, according to department the bills of the Delhi party that were produced with the objection on June 25, 1999 were fictitious. Departmental enquiries also revealed that the Delhi parties were non ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lue. The goods worth about Rs. 25 lacs and six trucks with their drivers were detained and if as contended by the revisionist that the seller s representative was there having all the papers the objections could have been filed on June 20, 1999 itself so that the goods could be released without delay. Therefore, so far as the seizure is concerned I do not find any cause for interference in revisional jurisdiction. The final findings of fact that will conclude the matter have to be arrived at in the penalty proceedings. 6.. Learned counsel for the revisionist also contended that the demand of security at the rate of 40 per cent of the value of the goods is excessive. He placed reliance on a circular dated 4th July, 1999 issued by the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
