Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant, being a Central Government public sector undertaking and a government company, was entitled to exemption from execution of bond and furnishing of bank guarantee for provisional assessment of excisable goods under the CBEC Manual.
Analysis: The appellant was found to hold 63.06% of its paid-up share capital through the President of India and to be a government company within the meaning of Section 2(45) of the Companies Act, 2013 and Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. The records also showed that the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises controlled the appointment of directors and other service-related and managerial matters, establishing that the undertaking was owned and managed by the Government of India through the Ministry. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the appellant fell within paragraph 6.1 of Chapter 14 of the CBEC Manual and not within paragraph 6.2.
Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the benefit of non-execution of bond and non-furnishing of bank guarantee for provisional assessment, and the departmental insistence on enhanced bond and bank guarantee was unsustainable.