Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in fact the respondents had no Jurisdiction to seize the trucks and he has claimed damages. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is correct. It has been repeatedly held by several Division Benches of this Court that trucks cannot be seized under the U. P. Trade-tax Act e.g., in the case of M/s. D. B. Timber Merchant, Ballia v. Commissioner of Sales-tax and another, 1992 UPTC 18, M/s. M. S. Freight Carriers and another v. Sales Tax Officer, Check Post, Ghaziabad, 1992 UPTC 273, M/s. Freight Carriers of India, Calcutta v. Deputy Commissioner (Executive), Sales Tax, Ghaziabad and others, 1992 UPTC 604, etc.
In terms of our circular SMDRP/POLICY/CIR35/2000 dated August 04, 2000, it was provided that the provisions of this circular shall be applicable to issues for which draft offer documents have been filed with SEBI on or after June 15, 2000.
G.S.R. 660(E) In pursuance of sub-rule (2) of rule 49 and rule 139 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue and Insurance), No. 266/67-Central Excise
I am directed to refer to the subject mentioned above and to say that a representation has been received in Board”s office Electronic Components Industries Association (ELCINA) regarding denial of the benefit of notification to BOPP film and Hazy film used in the manufacture of the capacitors
