9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (2) TMI 639 - HC - Central ExciseAppeal order - provisionally release the goods - provisional assessment - The order dated 13-1-2010 was passed more or less on consensus basis. It was made very clear to provisionally release the goods as well as to make provisional assessment and to pass final assessment within six months. There is no ambiguity in the order. If the Revenue is aggrieved by the said order the remedy lies somewhere else. However the Revenue passed the order contrary to the directions issued by this Court. Hence the Assistant Commissioner is hereby directed to make the provisional assessment on the basis of the order dated 13-1-2010 passed by this Court and that too asking the Applicants to furnish for AB2 bond to the extent of Rs. 74, 28.500/- and the bank guarantee of 25% thereof.
Issues:
Clarification of court order for provisional assessment and bond requirement. Analysis: The Applicants filed an application seeking clarification of the court order passed on 13-1-2010, directing provisional release of goods and assessment upon furnishing a bond and security. The Respondent Authorities demanded a bank guarantee of Rs. 74,28,500/-, contrary to court directions requiring a bank guarantee of 25% of the bond value. The Assistant Commissioner's demand for 100% bank guarantee was deemed excessive by the court. The court emphasized that the order of 13-1-2010 was clear, directing provisional release and assessment within six months. The Revenue's grievance with the order was not justified, and the Assistant Commissioner was directed to comply with the court's order, requiring a bond and bank guarantee as per specified percentages. To protect the Revenue's interest, the court accepted the submission that the sole buyer of the goods would provide a bond for any differential duty. The court also addressed the issue of goods lying at branch offices, directing their clearance within three weeks to enable the Excise Department to deal with them appropriately. The court disposed of the application, making the rule absolute with the provided directions. Direct service to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was permitted as part of the judgment.
|
