ORDER 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29-09-2006 passed by the Dy. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals) (Appellate Authority) Jammu under section 11 of the J&K GST Act,1962 (hereinafter called as `Act') 2. To put in brief the facts of the case is that Ld. Appellate Authority has seized the machinery which was purchased from M/s WWW PhotoLab System (SDN). BHD Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and cleared from the custom Check through M/as R.S. Rangnekar and Co., Mumbai by the consignee M/s Krishna Colour Lab, Below Gumat, Jammu. The appellant was a registered dealer . The machinery imported by the appellant was also covered in the CST registration certificate against column (b). Even then the Ld. Assessing Authority has seized the machinery of the consignee and forcibly charged the security amounting to Rs. 112440.00 under section 15-A(9) of the J&K GST Act, 1962. 3. Aggrieved by this order the appellant preferred an appeal before the Ld. Dy. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals) (Appellate Authority), Jammu on 11-02-2005 which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide his order dated 29-09-2006 and aggrieved by this order preferred 2nd appeal before this Tribunal on various grounds. The main ground urged by the appellant is, that the machinery was cleared from the Custom in the name of consignee and not in the name of consignor and if the delivery of goods or any allied job was conducted in India how it is possible to get the clearance from custom in the name of appellant. The machinery purchased by the consignee was covered by the Central Sales Laws. The question of liability of tax under the General Sales Tax Act was nor rise, therefore, tax charged from the appellant was totally illegal and unjustified and it is liable to be refunded alongwith interest. Also submitted that the Appellate Authority has not passed the order on merits. 4. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the respondents and have considered the grounds mentioned in the appeal as counsel for the appellant has choosen to remain absent has not appeared therefore the appeal is decided on merits. Also submitted that the Appellate Authority has not passed the order on merits. 4. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the respondents and have considered the grounds mentioned in the appeal as counsel for the appellant has choosen to remain absent has not appeared therefore the appeal is decided on merits. While going through the impugned order and order passed by the Assessing Authority, it has been established that the Assessing Authority passed the order on admission given by the appellant that he is ready to pay 4.2% tax instead of 8.4% which appellant has submitted before the Assessing Authority by way of written application. 5. It is also admitted fact that when goods was seized under section 15-A(9) of GST Act for want of security in lieu of service tax notice under said section was issued and served upon the consignor. In response to the notice issued the consignee represented on behalf of the consignor with plea as he is ready to pay the tax on behalf of the consignor and service tax may kindly be charged @ 4.2% of the total value i.e. Rs. 26,77124.00 instead of 8.4% as the contractor does not intend to carry on any business in the state in future. The Assessing Authority has represented the case before Commissioner, Sales Tax whereunder the Commissioner, Sales Tax approved the charging of tax on services @ 4.2% and Assessing Authority has accepted the application moved by the appellant and charged the appellant on his request tax on services @ 4.2%. 6. The Ld. Appellate Authority also have narrated the facts and circumstances of the case in his order impugned and has dismissed the appeal of the appellant while observing that on an application moved by the consignee (which is on record at Page 9 of the Assessing Authority File) whereunder he proposed to pay tax @4.2% instead of security on behalf of the consignor. The Assessing Authority has endorsed the application to the Dy. Commissioner, Sales Tax, Checkpost, Lakhanpur who also submittedthe same to Commissioner and even getting the approval from the Commissioner, thereafter appellant has paid the tax on his own admission. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision given by this Tribunal in case of M/s Satya Oil Mills V/s Excise and Taxation Officer passed on 07-12-2007. Commissioner, Sales Tax, Checkpost, Lakhanpur who also submittedthe same to Commissioner and even getting the approval from the Commissioner, thereafter appellant has paid the tax on his own admission. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision given by this Tribunal in case of M/s Satya Oil Mills V/s Excise and Taxation Officer passed on 07-12-2007. I have gone through the decision and found no relevance in this case as every case is having his own facts and circumstances. 8. For the foregoing reasons I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. The basic assessment order was passed on admission made by the appellant who lateron cannot reiterated. I found no irregularity or illegality having been committed by the Ld. Appellate as well as Assessing Authorities and the order impugned does not warrant any interference by the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed being without any merit and shall be consigned to records. Records, summoned, if any be returned forthwith. Stay, if any, granted earlier is hereby vacated.