2014 (12) TMI 1219 - SC - Customs

Seeking permission for withdrawal of petition - Pre-deposit of amount for entertainment of appeal - Furnishing of bank guarantee for 25% - in the event the appellants succeed in the pending appeal then the Bank Guarantee shall be returned. But if the order goes against the appellants then the amount of the Bank Guarantee shall be appropriated. Even if the appellants prefer further appeal they shall not object to invocation of the Bank Guarantee. So for determining the amount of Bank Guarantee adjustment shall be made of the amount already deposited. - Apex court dismissed the writ petitions as withdrawn and appeal disposed of

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Furnishing of Bank Guarantee for pending appeal before CESTAT.
2. Dismissal of writ petitions seeking withdrawal.
3. Disposal of appeals in terms of the signed order.

Analysis:

1. Furnishing of Bank Guarantee for pending appeal before CESTAT:
The judgment, delivered by Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh, pertains to the appellants' request to furnish a Bank Guarantee for 25% of the amount in question, as directed for the pending appeal before CESTAT. The counsel for the appellants agreed to provide the Bank Guarantee within ten days, which was not opposed by the respondent's counsel. The court disposed of the appeals with a clear directive for the appellants to furnish the Bank Guarantee within the stipulated time frame. It was explicitly stated that if the appellants succeed in the pending appeal, the Bank Guarantee would be returned; however, if the order goes against them, the amount of the Bank Guarantee would be appropriated. Furthermore, the appellants were prohibited from objecting to the invocation of the Bank Guarantee even if they preferred further appeal. The judgment emphasized the adjustment of the Bank Guarantee amount with any previously deposited sum for the determination process.

2. Dismissal of writ petitions seeking withdrawal:
In a separate context, the judgment addressed Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos.85 and 86 of 2012. The counsel for the writ petitioner, Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, sought permission for the withdrawal of these petitions. Consequently, the court dismissed these writ petitions as withdrawn, thereby resolving this specific issue.

3. Disposal of appeals in terms of the signed order:
Lastly, the judgment dealt with C.A. Nos.5204-5205/2012 and C.A. Nos.5206-5207/2012, disposing of these appeals in accordance with the signed order. The court's decision in this regard was concise and did not require further elaboration, indicating a straightforward resolution of these appeals based on the provided order.