2015 (5) TMI 968 - AT - Customs

Discharge of bank Gurantee - Held that - Vide Final Order dt. 29.4.2015 had allowed the appeals filed by M/s. Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd. and also dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. We do find that the M/s Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd. had executed the two Bank Guarantees No. namely ININ1MB08G306212 dated 5.9.2008 and ININ1MB08G306409 dt. 19.9.2008 both issued by the Royal Bank of Scotland, N.V. Brady House, 14 Veer Nariman Road, Fort Mumbai 400 023 which is valid upto 2.9.2015 and 16.9.2015 respectively. - Since the appeal filed by the appellant M/s. Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd. has already been allowed by the Bench, in our considered view the Bank Guarantees which have been executed by M/s. Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd. needs to be discharged - Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Application for direction under Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules 1982 for discharge of Bank Guarantee.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application filed by the applicant seeking direction under Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules 1982 for the discharge of a Bank Guarantee that was provided during the proceedings. The Senior Counsel representing the appellant highlighted that a previous Final Order dated 29.4.2015 by the Bench had set aside the impugned order contested on merits and granted consequential relief. The appellant, M/s. Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd., had executed two Bank Guarantees issued by the Royal Bank of Scotland, which were valid until specific dates in 2015. The Bench, after reviewing the records and considering the previous Final Order where one of the members was involved, noted that the appeals filed by M/s. Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd. had been allowed, and the appeal of the Revenue had been dismissed. Consequently, the Bench ordered the discharge of the Bank Guarantees executed by M/s. Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd. since their appeal had already been successful.

This judgment showcases the application of Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules 1982 in the context of seeking the discharge of a Bank Guarantee. It underscores the importance of compliance with procedural rules and the significance of previous Final Orders in determining subsequent actions. The decision reflects a careful consideration of the facts, records, and previous rulings to arrive at the conclusion that the Bank Guarantees should be discharged due to the successful appeal of the appellant. The judgment highlights the authority of the Tribunal to issue directions regarding Bank Guarantees in alignment with the outcomes of appeal proceedings, emphasizing the procedural and consequential aspects of such decisions in the realm of legal proceedings.