ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) Goods belonging to the revisionist were seized, and its release made conditional upon depositing of cash security/bank guarantee to the extent of Rs. 2,06,000/-. The order of the Tribunal records that the goods were sold vide Form-38, shown to be belonging to M/s. Agrawal Agencies, along with bill and equity, which contain particulars of M/s. Sumit Enterprises. The explanation submitted by the assessee was that the goods, in fact, were being sent to M/s. Sumit Enterprises, and it was on account of mistake on part of the transporter that the description of consignee was wrongly mentioned. It is also contended that the assessee is a registered dealer in the State of U.P. and in case any liability is to impose upon the assessee, then it could always be recovered from it, and there was no necessity of directing assessee to deposit cash security/bank guarantee.
(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that in the facts and circumstances the direction to deposit cash security/bank guarantee was not required. It is also stated that a plausible explanation had been furnished on behalf of the assessee and there was no material to doubt it.
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, points out that Form-38 which is stated to have been issued by M/s. Sumit Enterprises is of a date subsequent to dispatch of goods, and the authorities were therefore justified in proceeding against the revisionist.;