9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Refund of duty and revocation of bank guarantee following the Tribunal's order. 2. Dispute over the refund and bank guarantee revocation due to a potential appeal by the respondents to the Supreme Court. 3. Legal obligation of the respondents to refund the amount paid and discharge the bank guarantee. 4. Petitioner's entitlement to restitution following the Tribunal's order. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner, an exporter, challenged an order by the Collector of Customs demanding payment of duty and imposing a penalty. The Customs, Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the duty payment and penalty imposition. The petitioner made a deposit and provided a bank guarantee during the appeal process. The Tribunal's order entitled the petitioner to a refund and revocation of the bank guarantee. The petitioner requested the refund and revocation from the respondents, but it was not complied with, leading to the filing of the original petition seeking direction for refund and bank guarantee discharge. 2. The respondents, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Government, opposed the petitioner's request, stating that the appeal to the Supreme Court was being pursued due to technical grounds and the possibility of future misuse. They argued that the Tribunal's order was flawed, questioning the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and citing a conflicting decision from another High Court. The respondents sought dismissal of the writ petition based on these grounds. 3. The petitioner's deposit and bank guarantee were made in compliance with the Tribunal's interim order. Following the Tribunal's decision to set aside the duty payment and penalty, the petitioner became entitled to restitution of the amount and discharge of the bank guarantee. Legal principles such as Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act and Article 265 of the Constitution support the petitioner's right to refund when an order is set aside. The duty to refund or make restitution is not delayed by potential appeals, and in the absence of a stay order from the Supreme Court, the respondents are obligated to comply with the Tribunal's order and provide the refund. 4. The Court held in favor of the petitioner, directing the respondents to refund the amount paid and discharge the bank guarantee within two months. The Court emphasized the respondents' duty to make restitution promptly, especially since the payment and bank guarantee were made based on the Tribunal's interim order. The Court acknowledged the respondents' legal arguments but stated that those could be addressed in the Supreme Court appeal, while the immediate obligation was to refund the petitioner and cancel the bank guarantee.
|
