9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... op auction proceedings of the seized goods as per notice dated 28.10.2023. 2. The second respondent had intercepted a consignment of Areca Nuts from truck bearing registration no. UP53 DT 9190. The petitioner, who is the consignee of the goods as mentioned in the bilty, invoice and e-way bill and is registered under the Act in Delhi applied for temporary registration. The petitioner after passing of the seizure order filed an application on 17.08.2023 for release of seized goods in its favour on the footing that he being the consignee, is entitled to release of the goods in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the Act after payment of penalty equal to 200% of the tax payable on the seized goods. However, by order dated 28.08.2023, respondent no. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the department and points out that one of the aspects clarified in the said Circular is regarding person, who could be treated to be owner of the goods for purposes of Section 129(1) of the Act. 4. The clarification given by the department mentions that "if the invoice or any other specified document is accompanied the consignment of goods, then either the consignor or the consignee should be the owner. If the invoice or any other specified documents is not accompanied the consignment of goods, then in such case, a proper officer should determine, who should be declared as owner of the goods." In his submission since the invoice and e-way bill was accompanying the consignment of goods, therefore, as per own Circular of the department he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orical evidence on record to establish that the firm was existing only on papers to reap benefit of inverse tax credit. The e-way bill was held to have been generated for transporting goods from non-bonafide dealer from undisclosed place. However, in the instant case, there is no such finding. Although, the registration of the consignor firm was suspended subsequently but it is not the case of the department that the firm does not exist. It is also not disputed that the registration of the petitioner firm was cancelled after the passing of the impugned order. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is a non-bonafide dealer. Therefore, in our opinion, the finding that the parties had under valued the goods or there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
