9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
1. Implementation of order for cancellation of bank guarantee after payment of customs duty. 2. Department's writ petition against rejection of stay application by CEGAT. 3. Interpretation of conditions imposed on bank guarantee by High Court. Analysis: 1. The first issue involves a writ petition seeking direction for implementing an order to cancel a bank guarantee after payment of customs duty. The department filed a connected writ petition against the rejection of their stay application by CEGAT. The court decided to address the department's writ petition first to determine the need for implementing the appellate authority's order. 2. The department argued that CEGAT should not have rejected their stay petition solely based on the absence of a specified law provision. However, the court found that CEGAT's main reason for denial was the lack of a prima facie case by the department. The court emphasized that the question of stay involves discretion, and the rejection was based on the absence of a strong case, not just the technicality of law provision indication. 3. The third issue pertains to the interpretation of conditions set by the High Court regarding a bank guarantee. The court noted that the High Court's order did not require any additional bank guarantee beyond the one already provided. The court decided that it was not appropriate to demand a new bank guarantee or extend the expired one due to the appeal process. Consequently, the court directed the cancellation of the bank guarantee upon payment of the assessed amount, with a timeline for the return of the guarantee. In conclusion, the court upheld CEGAT's decision on the stay application, emphasizing the lack of a prima facie case. The court also clarified the interpretation of the High Court's conditions on the bank guarantee, directing its revocation upon payment of the assessed amount. Additionally, the court instructed CEGAT to expedite the matter's resolution in accordance with the law.
|
