2013 (10) TMI 499

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for both the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. Petitioner-Company challenges the action of the respondent-authority in encashing bank guarantees which were furnished by the petitioner to secure the revenue at the time of provisional release of goods i.e. before passing of an adjudication order. The adjudication order was passed on 22 August 2013 by the Commissioner of Central E .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uarantees even before the period to file an appeal is over, is contrary to and in define of the law laid down by this Court in the matter of Mahindra & Mahindra v/s. Union of India, 1992 (59) ELT 505 (Bom.) and Legrand (India) Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Union of India, 2007 (216) ELT 678 (Bom.). 5. On the basis of the above decisions, it is contended that the action of respondent-revenue in encashing the ban .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e respondent-revenue is directed to refund the aforesaid amount to respondent No.4 bank by 15 October 2013. Within one week of receiving the amount, the respondent No.4 bank would issue bank guarantees in favour of the respondent-authority, so as to maintain the statusquo ante as existing prior to encashment of the bank guarantee. 8. This order would enure to the benefit of the petitioner till th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X