9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (10) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order of the 1st respondent as per Adjudication Order No. 16/71, dated 6-4-1971 as confirmed by the 2nd respondent in D.R.D is No. V/4/l/2/115/71, dated 6-10-1971 and modified by the 3rd respondent in his Order No. 760/73, dated 29-5-1973. ***** 2. The petitioner is a resident of Baduguvanilanka, in Amalapuram Taluk, East Godavari Dist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion at dawn time and it was late by 2 hours. The goods were later released on deposit of cash. A show cause notice was issued, the petitioner gave his reply and there was an adjudication and the 1st respondent passed the order dated 6-4-1971 confiscating the tobacco, i e. its value and a penalty of Rs. 250/-. Thereupon the owner of the tempo also was prosecuted and the vehicle was confiscated. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver, observe that a case of misuse of the sale note has not been made out. Government therefore reduce the penalty to Rs. 50/- (Rupees fifty only). The revision application is otherwise rejected." From the above order it is clear that the petitioner did not misuse the sale note. If that is so, it is rather difficult to apprehend as to how the packages of tobacco did not tally with those in the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner." From that it is clear that no case of double transport also has been made out. 5. Having regard to these circumstances it must be held that the petitioner has not indulged in any misuse of the sale note. The only question is whether there was delay as alleged. In the sale note the starting time is mentioned as "night 9.00 hours". The time when the vehicle reached the destinatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
