9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 938X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vehicles numbered as RJ-22/2222 and GJ-12-W/5053. These vehicles were carrying soyabean oil in the volume of 25.630 MT and 23.620 MT, totaling 49.250 MT from Kandivili to Kanpur. 2. According to the petitioner; The soyabean oil was imported by M/s Mantora Agro Industries Limited, Kanpur (the Mantora) from Switzerland and, thereafter, was being brought from Kandla; It was being transported on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods have been seized and not the vehicles; The seized goods is liquid. It can only be unloaded in the containers. The applicant may unload the goods alongwith the containers and thereafter, could take away the vehicles. 6. The petitioner did not do anything. It neither challenged this order dated 01.12.2005 nor unloaded the oil in the containers but filed another application filed for release o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ortunities to the respondents to put its case regarding the question of damages. 11. The Commissioner Trade Tax wrote a letter dated 11.12.2009 to the Additional Commissioner asking his views on the question of damages. The Additional Commissioner sent its views on 10.06.2010 stating therein that the petitioner is entitled the damages to the extent of ₹ 80,000/- but as the goods were not re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder was challenged. 15. It is doubtful whether the respondent are responsible for the damage or solely responsible for the same. In this regard, the following facts are releant: An order was passed on 01.12.2005 that the vehicles could be taken away after unloading the oil in the containers. This was neither done nor the order was challenged. Had the petitioner done that they could have taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
