M/S. Dhan Laxmi Transport Co. and Vs. Cc, Jaipur - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....out in the order of the commissioner. in bilty no.380 dt.14.10.99 transportation of the goods was shown from agra in truck no.rnd 9225 whereas in fact no goods moved from agra in truck no.rnd 9225 and only bilty no.380 dt.14.10.99 was issued by them to facilitate the removal of the goods clandstinely from the factory premises of the importer situated at udaipur. he submits that thus the fabrication of the documents knowingly for transportation of the goods which were liable for confiscation, the applicants were liable to penal action. he, therefore submits that since the applicants were conniving in transportation of the smuggled goods they do not deserve any waiver of penalty. he, therefore prays that they may be directed to deposit the entire amount of penalty.3. we have heard the rival submissions. we note that in the instant case the applicants are transporters but we find from the records placed before us that though the documents were issued for transportation of the goods from agra. no goods moved from agra and thus prima facie connivance of the applicants come into picture. we have also considered the arguments of the financial constraint. looking to the facts of the.....

Judgment:

1. These are two applications fr waiver. Arguing the case for the petitioners for waiver of pre-deposit, Dr. R.K.Mehra and Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mehra, ld. Advocates submit that the applicants are only transporters and organised transportation of goods from one place to the other on commission basis. They submit that the applicants are not the owner of the goods nor have they claimed the ownership of the goods and that they had no role to paly and, therefore no penalty could be imposed on them. They also submit that the applicants are poor people and are not in a position to deposit the penalty. It was therefore prayed by them that pre-deposit of penalty may be waived.

2. Shri S.K.Das, ld. JDR opposes the request and submits that the role of the applicants has clearly been brought out in the order of the Commissioner. In bilty No.380 dt.14.10.99 transportation of the goods was shown from Agra in truck No.RND 9225 whereas in fact no goods moved from Agra in truck No.RND 9225 and only bilty No.380 dt.14.10.99 was issued by them to facilitate the removal of the goods clandstinely from the factory premises of the importer situated at Udaipur. He submits that thus the fabrication of the documents knowingly for transportation of the goods which were liable for confiscation, the applicants were liable to penal action. He, therefore submits that since the applicants were conniving in transportation of the smuggled goods they do not deserve any waiver of penalty. He, therefore prays that they may be directed to deposit the entire amount of penalty.

3. We have heard the rival submissions. We note that in the instant case the applicants are transporters but we find from the records placed before us that though the documents were issued for transportation of the goods from Agra. No goods moved from Agra and thus prima facie connivance of the applicants come into picture. We have also considered the arguments of the financial constraint. Looking to the facts of the case and evidence in its entirety, we direct the two applicants to deposit Rs.10,000/- each on or before 1.6.2001. On deposit of this amount, deposit of the balance amount of penalty shall be dispensed with and recovery thereof shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal. Failure to comply with the above direction shall lead to dismissal of the appeal without any further notice. The matter should come up for reporting compliance on 8.6.2001.