Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1992 (10) TMI 99

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the fact that the Union of India is required to encash several Bank guarantees in several Petitions with regard to the same subject matter. The petitioners instituted Writ Petition No. 933 of 1979 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Division Bench of this Court seeking refund of excise duty. The petitioners also sought the relief of restraining the Union of India from levying and collecting on the processed goods excise duty under Tariff Item Nos. 19 and 22 and under Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 from the petitioners. The Petition was admitted on April 18, 1979 and interim relief was granted on condition of petitioners furnishing 100% Bank guarantee. The Petiti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f arrears of excise duty and shall be entitled to take necessary steps to seek the enforcement of the bank guarantees, if any, for the recovery of the arrears." 3. In view of the operative order in Paragraph 32A of the judgment, the Union of India was entitled to enforce the Bank guarantees furnished by the petitioners and accordingly the Union of India approached the Registry for enforcement of Bank guarantee. The Supreme Court, in the meanwhile, on January 27, 1989 passed a clarificatory order and which is reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 493 (S.C.) = 1989 (21) ECR 1 (SC) [Ujagar Prints etc. etc. v. Union of India Others]. By this clarificatory order, the Supreme Court held that while ascertaining the assessable value, it is necessary to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eal before the Collector, Central Excise and Customs on July 29, 1992. The petitioners also filed an application for dispensing with the deposit and applied for stay of operation of the order. The proceedings before the Appellate Collector are pending. 4. The Union of India, feeling aggrieved that the Bank guarantees cannot be enforced in spite of the order passed by the Supreme Court, moved the Registry to place these proceedings for directions before this Court. It is required to be stated that all Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the Appellate Side of this Court and all applications or directions in those petitions are required to be placed before the Division Bench in accordance with the rules framed b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e of the Supreme Court order that the Bank guarantees shall be enforced. Once, the Supreme Court gave such a direction, it was not open for the learned Single Judge to direct that the Bank guarantee shall not be encashed till the value is reassessed. Merely because the petitioners desired that the Assistant Collector should reassess the amount liable to duty, it is not open to prevent the Union of India from enforcing the Bank guarantee. We are unable to share the view of the learned Single Judge and, in our judgment, the Bank guarantee is liable to be enforced forthwith. Shri Hidayatullah submitted that in view of the direction given by the learned Single Judge, the enforcement of the Bank guarantee stands postponed till the final Court of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1989 and to which reference is made hereinabove, it should be held that the Supreme Court has provided that the Bank guarantees shall not be encashed. It is not possible to accede to the submission. We are unable to accede to the contention of Shri Hidayatullah that by implication the Supreme Court has directed that the Bank guarantee should not be encashed till the value is re-assessed. There is nothing in the clarificatory order to draw such an inference and in our judgment, there is no obstruction whatsoever in the way of Union of India to enforce the Bank guarantee forthwith. It is also interesting to note in this respect that right from January 27, 1989 onwards when the Supreme Court issued clarificatory order, the petitioners have ma .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates