ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) It is stated that goods were being transported from Gurgaon to Patna through the revisionist transporter, which had a godown at Kanpur, where the vehicle was to be changed, after unloading the product. It stated that the transporter has more than 300 branches, and for the convenience of transportation, vehicle was being changed. Submission is that in such circumstances, the authorities were not justified in insisting upon depositing 40% of the value of goods for its release. It is also contended that seizure in the facts and circumstances is unwarranted.
(2.) Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, points out that details given in Transit Declaration Form (TDF) has been found to be factually incorrect, inasmuch as the revisionist admits that it is not the vehicle through which goods were to be transported.
(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that though the circular issued in terms of Section 52 contemplates that change of vehicle has to be notified, but there is no such clause in the TDF, and therefore, it is not possible for the revisionist to mention such details.;