9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal in the Supreme Court cannot be a ground for not returning the bond and bank guarantee. HELD THAT:- The respondents should return the bonds and bank guarantees of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition disposed off. - WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.95825 OF 2020 AND WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.95835 OF 2020 - - - Dated:- 8-3-2021 - UJJAL BHUYAN MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. Mr. Prakash Shah alongwith Mr. Prasad Paranjpe and Mr. Jas Sanghavi i/by M/s PDS Legal, Advocates for the Petitioners. Mr. Sham Walve alongwith Mr. Ram Ochani, Advocates for the Respondents. P.C.:- This order will dispose of both Writ Petition (St.) Nos.95825 and 95835 of 2020. 2. We ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g demand of differential duty to the extent of ₹ 34,48,785.00 with applicable interest. Further, adjudicating authority imposed penalty of ₹ 34,48,785.00 under section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act. 6. When this order was appealed against by the petitioner before the Commissioner(Appeals)-II, Pune, the appellate authority vide order dated 20th June, 2019 rejected the appeal by upholding the order-in-original. 7. Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai (CESTAT) which was registered as Customs Appeal No.87063 of 2019. By order dated 12th December, 2019 , CESTAT allowed the appeal of the petitioner. It was held as under:- Class ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uted at the time of provisional release of the goods as well as for refund of pre-deposit made under section 129E of the Customs Act alongwith interest. By order dated 10th March, 2020 respondent No.4 sanctioned refund of ₹ 3,44,879.00 being the refund claim of pre-deposit made by the petitioner. Though petitioner had sought for return of bank guarantee and bond alongwith refund of pre-deposit, by the aforesaid order respondent No.4 only confined to the refund of pre-deposit without taking a decision on petitioner s request for return of bank guarantee and bond. 9. On the other hand, respondent No.4 wrote to the Branch Manager of the Union Bank of India, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai for extending the period of the bank guarantee. It was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Importer Name Bank Guarantee No. Date Date of Expiry Bank s name Amount Reasons 1 La-Tim Lifestyle Resorts Ltd. 31970IGL0002519 17.06. 2019 05.05.2020 Union Bank, Mumbai. 2678000 Provisional Assessment 2 La-Tim Sourcing India P. Ltd. 31970IGL0002419 17.06.2019 05.05.2020 Union Bank, Mumbai. 495500 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
