9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf states that the petitioner had a period of 60 days to prefer an appeal under Section 128 of the said Act of 1962 coupled with the Circular dated 16.09.2014 and the decision of this Court in M/S ORACLE INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI OTHS. [ 2013 (7) TMI 720 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] , the impugned letters dated 11.03.2021 and 16.03.2021, whereby the respondents have encashed the bank guarantee and invoked the continuity bonds in respect of the entire disputed amount as directed in the impugned order is not only contrary to law and the facts and probabilities of the case but also opposed to the principles of natural justice, in that no opportunity, much less reasonable or sufficient opportunity was provided to the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and rejoinder as well as referring to the documents produced by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner imported oxygen sensors and loud speakers for use and inputs in the manufacture of ICU ventilators without payment of customs duty availing the benefit of exemption Notification No.20/2020-CUS dated 09.04.2020 read with Customs (Import of goods at Concession rate of duty) Rules, 2017. Prior to import of the goods, petitioner furnished Bank guarantee dated 08.05.2020 issued by ICICI Bank in a sum of ₹ 5,25,000/-; petitioner also executed continuity bonds dated 27.05.2020, 27.05.2020 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms Act, 1962 (for short, 'the said Act of 1962') provides for an appeal to be filed by the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of the Order-in-Original dated 10.03.2021, the respondents have illegally and high handedly proceeded to recover the aforesaid sum of ₹ 34,09,343/- by encashing the bank guarantee on 11.03.2021 in a sum of ₹ 5,25,000/- and invoking the continuity bonds executed by the petitioner for the balance of ₹ 28,84,343/- without waiting for the statutory period of 60 days to expire within which the petitioner was entitled to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority. (i) It is pointed out that a perusal of the Order-in- Original will also indicate that the respondent No.2 him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued to the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. In support of his contentions, learned counsel places reliance upon the following decisions: i) M/s. Oracle India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others 2013 TIOL 544 HC KAR CUS; ii) Dharampal Lalchand Chug Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Nashik 2015 (323) ELT 753 (BOM); ii) Rajuram Purohit Vs. Union of India 2018 TIOL 591 HC MUM CUS; iii) Skoda Export Company Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2016 (343) ELT 140 (DEL); iv) Tamil Trading Corporation Vs. CCE, Tuticorin 2005 VIL 18 CESTAT CHE CU ; v) M/s. Flextronics Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) 2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ha Engineering Ltd., - 2010 (249) ELT 167 (BOM) 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submission and perused the material on record. 8. Though several contentions have been urged by both sides with regard to the exemption claimed by the petitioner, the alleged liability of the petitioner to pay the amount stated in the Order-in-Original dated 10.03.2021, the right of the respondents to encash the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner and to invoke the continuity bonds executed by the petitioner etc., the limited point that arises for consideration is, whether the respondents were justified in encashing the bank guarantee and invoking the continuity bonds before expiry of the statutory appeal period of 60 days f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he statutory period of 60 days and the respondents have hastily and hurriedly proceeded to issue the impugned letters which cannot be countenanced under any circumstances whatsoever and the same deserve to be quashed. 10. So also, learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his contention that the maximum liability to deposit the disputed amount in the appeal already preferred by the petitioner, which is pending adjudication is 7.5% of the disputed amount out of the total sum of ₹ 34,09,343/- as directed in the Order-in-Original; it follows therefrom that in view of my finding that the impugned letters / orders are illegal and arbitrary and deserve to be quashed, by also applying the principles of restitution, it is necessary to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
