9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. The brief facts of the case are that appellants had registered a contract for import of raw materials, components, consumables etc. under the Project Import Regulations, 1986. At the time of registration of contract, the Revenue authorities directed the appellants to make security deposit of Rs.17,54,240/-. Subsequently, as per the provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C, Mumbai - 2013 (289) ELT 389 (Tri-Mum) 2) CC, Chennai vs. Minerva Trade Links (P) Ltd. - 2009 (233) ELT 399 (Tri-Chennai) 3) CC, Chennai vs. M/s. Madras Fertilizers Ltd (appeal NO. C/5 and 37/2006- Final Order Nos. 115-116/12) The contention is that the tribunal in the above decisions held that as the cash security has been made in terms of Board's Circular for regis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, being taken. The balance amount shall be covered by a bank guarantee backed by an undertaking to renew it till the finalisation of the contract. The Government Department and Public Sector Undertaking would, however, continue to be exempted from furnishing the above cash security. In respect of Fertiliser Projects which are liable to Zero rate of duty, Commissioner are advised to take only a n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of duty, refund was granted. In the said judgment there was no conclusion to say that pre-deposit of amounts would be construed as duty. In fact the Tribunal did not go into the question at all. In the case before us, the payment of cash security was made in terms of the Board's circular cited supra and the circular makes it abundantly clear that it is only a cash security and not any other pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
