ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) It is contended that the goods were being transported from Haryana to Nepal. Reliance is placed upon form ARE to contend that due intimation of removal of goods was given to the central excise authorities and even in the bilty details of consignee was mentioned with its address shown of Nepal. Learned counsel submits that non existence of TDF form only raises a rebuttal presumption, and in case assessee is able to substantiate that transaction is duly recorded, then mere absence of TDF form would not justify an order of seizure. Reliance is placed upon a decision of this Court in Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Lucknow v. S/s Bihar Foundary and Casting Ltd, 2017 UPTC 193 .
(2.) Learned Standing Counsel submits that the assessee is owner of vehicle and in such circumstances, interest of revenue is liable to be protected.
(3.) Considering that goods seized attracted liability of tax at the rate of 4%, and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as are brought on record, it would be appropriate to modify the order of tribunal and allow release of goods upon assessee depositing 12% of the value of goods in cash or security, and furnishing indemnity bond for the rest of amount towards security. Deposit of amount shall be subject to appropriate proceedings that may be drawn in accordance with law.;