9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 799X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. In view of the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, the petitioner has no case that CESTAT was pleased to stay the recovery pending statutory appeal. When it is made out that CESTAT has not stayed the order passed by the Customs Department, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that the second respondent erred in invoking the bank guarantee - Decided against assessee. - W. P. (MD)No. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication No.21/0s Cus. dated 01.03.2002. Subsequently, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence initiated investigation for misdeclaration. 3. The Joint Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin passed an order dated 29.11.2005, determining the duty payable by the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to pay penalty also. The said order was challenged before the Commissioner of Appeals. The appeal was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uarantee for a sum of 20,725 US Dollars, which is equivalent to ₹ 11 lakhs and subject to the said condition, the Customs Department was directed to release the goods. The petitioner complied with the said condition and accordingly, goods were released. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, passed the impugned order, invoking bank guarantee. 6. It is true that bank guarantee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
