9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed raw materials against the advance licences, free of duty in terms of the Notification No. 128/94-Cus., dated 10-6-94. At the time of import, the appellants executed a bond with bank guarantee of Rs. 1,87,74,125/- in terms of condition 4 of the Notification. Inasmuch as, the appellants could not fulfil the export obligation and could not furnish export discharge obligation certificate within thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acceptance by the DGFT was intimated to the Revenue by the appellants by their letter dated 19-7-2000. Vide their letter dated 15-1-2001, the appellants requested the Revenue to refund the amount encashed by them by way of bank guarantee. 3. On the above facts, they were issued a show cause notice proposing to reject the refund claim on the ground of time bar as also on unjust enrichment. The s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation in the reasoning of the appellate authority. The Revenue showed uncalled for haste in encashing bank guarantee even when they were informed not only by the appellants but also by DGFT authorities that the appellant's application for issue of requisite certificate showing fulfilment of export obligation is pending. Furnishing bank guarantee by the appellants at the time of import against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Somaiya Organics v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2001 (130) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), has observed that bank guarantee cannot be regarded payment of excise levy. To the same effect is the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. v. Asst. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1994 (70) E.L.T. 48 (S.C.), in which it was held that the ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to refund the encashed bank guarantee to the appellants. 5. We also take note of the Rajasthan High Court's decision in the case of Union of India v. Grasim industries Ltd., reported in 2005 (183) E.L.T. 12 (Raj.) = 2005 (123) ECR 105 (Rajasthan) laying down that furnishing of bank guarantee is not equivalent to payment of excise duty and the provisions of Section 11B are not attracted. 6. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
