9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount under the bank guarantee would be in addition to the amount directed by the Tribunal to be deposited by way of predeposit. Moreover, once the licence has been surrendered and no amount is outstanding and payable by the petitioner towards the warehousing licence and the bonds executed by the petitioner have been cancelled, the respondents are not justified in retaining the bank guarantees. Petitioner has also placed on record a copy of the undertaking given by the petitioner to the respondents assuring the Customs Department that they would discharge any liability that may be finalised or arise against the petitioner and have also sought release of the bank guarantees aggregating to ₹ 10,00,000/-. Thus, the warehousing licence stands surrendered, the warehousing bonds stand cancelled, the demands raised by the orders passed against the petitioner in the three proceedings stand stayed by the Tribunal. Moreover, the petitioner has also given an undertaking to the respondents that it will discharge all liabilities that may be finalised or arise against the petitioner. In these circumstances, in the opinion of this court, the respondents are not justified in withholding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een passed by the concerned customs authority against the petitioner and the petitioner herein has preferred appeals against the said orders before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) which has allowed the stay applications by passing three separate stay orders. Such stay orders are still in operation and accordingly there is a stay against recovery of the disputed amounts of penalty in the petitioner s favour. Since the customs authorities have not released the bank guarantees, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking a direction to the respondents No.2 and 3 to forthwith return the original bank guarantee papers of Bank Guarantee No.1996/22 dated 12th December, 1996 and Bank Guarantee No.2003/13 dated 29th December, 2003. 4. Mr. Paresh Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in respect of the orders which have been passed against it, the petitioner has preferred appeals before the Appellate Tribunal which has granted stay in favour of the petitioner and such orders are in operation. In these circumstances, the purpose for which the bank guarantees were given no longer survives. It was s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposed upon the petitioner. It was pointed out that in relation to another Order-in-Original, penalty of ₹ 75 lakhs and in case of the third Order-in-Original, customs duty of ₹ 25,47,965/- and an equal amount of penalty had been confirmed against the petitioner. It was submitted that all these liabilities have arisen in connection with the warehousing activities carried out by the petitioner and hence, pending the appeal, the request of the petitioner that the bank guarantees should be released cannot be entertained, inasmuch as, the liability is connected with the warehousing activities. It was submitted that this is not a case where the orders passed by the adjudicating authority or the first appellate authority are in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, all the cases being linked to warehousing activities, the bank guarantees continue and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents have rightly refused to release the same. It was submitted that, therefore, appropriate directions be issued to the Tribunal to decide the appeals expeditiously, however, no case has been made out for releasing the bank guarantees. 6. In rejoinder, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctual background, the respondents are entitled to retain the bank guarantees. The record of the case reveals that in connection with the warehousing activities, three cases came to be instituted against the petitioner which culminated into orders against the petitioner whereby the demand and/or the penalty came to be confirmed. The petitioner challenged the orders either before the first appellate authority or the Tribunal, as the case may be, and against the order passed by the first appellate authority, before the Tribunal. In all the three cases, the Tribunal has granted stay subject to pre-deposit of the amount stipulated in such orders, which the petitioner has already deposited. Therefore, in relation to all the three orders which have been passed against the petitioner, proceedings are pending before the Tribunal and such orders had been stayed. Under the circumstances, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the respondents are permitted to retain the bank guarantees, it would amount to negating the stay orders granted by the Tribunal because the amount under the bank guarantee would be in addition to the amount directed by the Tribunal to be depo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
