ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) These two revisions are by M/s Poonam Oil Industries, Indore and the revenue, challenging the order passed by Tribunal dated 3.4.2017, which allows release of goods seized upon deposit of security to the extent of tax liable to be paid on such goods. M/s Poonam Oil contends that seizure is bad, as also the consequential direction to deposit security to the extent of tax, whereas revenue contends that its interest is not protected, inasmuch as in the event, appropriate proceedings are drawn, the amount which may be held payable as penalty would not be recoverable.
(2.) Facts of the case are that the mobile squad of District Aligarh of the department intercepted transport vehicle bearing registration No. U.P. 78 BT 6197, coming from Kanpur. At the time of detention, the driver produced sale invoice of M/s Ridhi Oil dated 3.3.2017, bilty no. 1555 issued in favour of the transporter, which was undated, Form 21 dated 3.3.2017 of M/s Ridhi Oil, Kanpur, as well as Form-49 downloaded from State of Madya Pradesh of the same date i.e. 3.3.2017. The revisionist contended that it had purchased oil from M/s Ridhi Oil, Kanpur and thereafter got it tested in Madhya Pradesh, and proceeded to sell it to M/s Asian Paints Ltd. Kasna, Gautam Budh Nagar. As per the revisionist the transfer was covered under Section 3 (b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, and necessary documents warranting such movement of goods were possessed by truck driver at the time of detention of goods.
(3.) The explanation submitted by the revisionist was not accepted and a seizure order was passed. An application under Section 48 (7) was then moved before the Joint Commissioner, which also has been rejected with the observation that release of goods could be allowed only after furnishing of security to the extent of 40% of the value of goods. Aggrieved by such order, the revisionist has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which has been decided by the order under challenge.;