Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal quashes duty demand, orders transparency in bond enforcement process</h1> The Tribunal set aside the duty demand on the appellant under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, allowing the Revenue to enforce the bond. However, the ... Demand - Non-accountal of goods Issues:Enforcement of bond and bank guarantee to recover the amount due without proper information and opportunity to represent the case.Analysis:The judgment deals with an appeal against the enforcement of a bond and bank guarantee by the original adjudicating authority to recover an amount due. The Tribunal had previously set aside the demand under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, stating that demanding duty on the appellant, who was not a manufacturer of the raw material, was wrong in law. The Tribunal allowed the Revenue to enforce the bond if advised to do so. The appellant contended that they were not given an opportunity to represent their case, and the bonds were enforced without proper information or disclosure of details. The appellant also cited a previous case where it was held that the proper forum to enforce a bond is a Court of Law, not the adjudicating authority or Tribunal.In this case, the duty demand arose due to the failure to account for a specific quantity of polyester staple fiber procured without payment of duty. The Tribunal had set aside the demand under Rule 9(2) and granted liberty to the Revenue to enforce the bond. However, after the Tribunal's order, the department simply enforced the bonds and bank guarantees without providing detailed information to the appellants. The appellants expressed their inability to locate the bonds executed by them for the amount payable to the department. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments and directed the original adjudicating authority to provide the details of the enforced bonds to the appellants, emphasizing the importance of transparency and due process in such enforcement actions.The judgment highlights the significance of procedural fairness and transparency in enforcing bonds and bank guarantees to recover amounts due. It underscores the importance of providing opportunities for appellants to represent their case and ensuring that detailed information regarding the enforced bonds is disclosed. The Tribunal's decision to direct the original adjudicating authority to provide such details serves as a reminder of the principles of natural justice and procedural regularity in such matters.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
