AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri S.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist.
The goods of the revisionist while in transit were seized and the representation against the same was rejected. Aggrieved, the revisionist preferred second appeal before the tribunal which has been partly allowed and the goods have been directed to be released on furnishing cash security of 20% of the estimated value of the goods. Not satisfied by the above order, the present revision has been preferred.
The goods of the revisionist were seized as they were not accompanied by transit declaration form which is mandatory. The said declaration form has not been submitted even in response to the show cause notice.
The submission that it was fault on the part of the driver of the vehicle cannot absolve the revisionist from the responsibility of furnishing full and complete papers in respect of the goods in transit.
In view of the above and the finding that the goods were not accompanied by the transit declaration from there is no justification for this Court to interfere in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No question of law is involved in this revision.
Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.