2010 (6) TMI 198

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed by revenue so as to prevent seeking withdrawal of bank guarantee. Revenue not justified in holding bank guarantee. Penalty already deposited, no liability against petitioner. - 4524 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 29-6-2010 - V.C. Daga and S.J. Kathawalla, JJ. REPRESENTED BY: S/Shri S.N. Kantawala i/b, Brijesh Pathak, for the Petitioner. S/Shri M.I. Sethna, Sr. Counsel with A.M. Sethna, for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sum of Rs.50 lakh on the petitioner Company, whereas penalty of Rs.5 lakh was imposed on one Shri Ashok Jain, the Director with direction to deposit the said amounts with the office of Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai by way of bank draft, which the petitioner has deposited during the pendency of this petition. 4. The petitioner is, now, seeking return of the bank guarantee which was for Rs. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r. There is no other liability against the petitioner as on date. The petitioner has filed an undertaking dated 29th June, 2010. The undertaking together with statements made therein is taken on record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner advanced his submissions in consonance with the prayers made in the petition. 6. Mr. Sethna, learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue strongly o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X