9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts accompanying the goods at the time of seizure in terms of their own Circular dated 31.12.2018 in determining the said issue. The order to the extent it seeks to reject the prayer for release of goods in favour of the petitioner, cannot be sustained. It is accordingly quashed to the said extent only. The second respondent is directed to reconsider the issue relating to release of goods in favour of the petitioner keeping in mind the Circular dated 31.12.2018 and the fact that invoice and e-way bill were found accompanying, the consignment of seized goods - Petition disposed off. - Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta And Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh , JJ. For the Petitioner : Shubham Agrawal For the Respondent : C. S. C. ORDER 1. The petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, it would not be proper to hold the consignor or the consignee as actual owner of the goods. 3. Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents, at the time of seizure of goods, have prepared a seizure memo and according to it, the invoice and e-way Bill clearly mentions the petitioner as consignee of the goods; copies of the invoice and e-way Bills have been annexed in support of the claim. He also submits that the physical verification carried out by respondent no. 2 at the time of interception of the vehicle clearly reveals that the actual goods found in the vehicle tallied with the quantity mentioned in the invoice and as such the finding returned in the impugned order that the petitioner ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of U.P. Ors.) in submitting that the petitioner has rightly not been treated to be owner of the goods. 6. It is not disputed by Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent that as per the seizure memo prepared by respondent no. 2, the goods were accompanied by invoice and e-way bill both of which duly discloses the petitioner as the consignee of the goods. He also does not dispute that as per physical verification report, no anomaly was found at the time of inspection between the documents and the goods actually seized. He also does not dispute that the Circular of the department dated 21.12.2018 clarifies that where the aforesaid documents were found accompanying the consignment of goods, the consignee would be deemed to be the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
