TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Court Stops Customs from Prematurely Cashing Bank Guarantee, Protects Petitioner's Rights During Appeal Process.</h1> <h3>OCEAN DRIVING CENTER LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> OCEAN DRIVING CENTER LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA - 2005 (180) E.L.T. 313 (Bom.) Issues Involved:The judgment involves issues related to challenging the encashment of a bank guarantee by customs authorities before the expiry of the statutory appeal period, interpretation of bank guarantee terms, and the application of relevant legal precedents.Facts and Contention:The petitioner imported goods and claimed exemption from customs duty. Customs authorities ordered encashment of the bank guarantee for duty payment. The petitioner argued that encashment should wait until the appeal period expires, citing statutory appeal rights and classification disputes. The petitioner also highlighted the respondents' policy against coercive actions during appeal periods.Submissions and Legal Precedents:The petitioner relied on legal precedents like Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. case and judgments from the Delhi High Court to support the argument against premature encashment of bank guarantees. The petitioner emphasized the need for the respondents to refrain from encashing the bank guarantee until the appeal process is completed.Revenue's Argument and Precedents:The Revenue contended that as per bank guarantee terms, encashment was justified upon finalization of assessment by the department. Legal precedents like Daewoo Motors India Ltd. case and Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. case were cited to support the Revenue's position on invoking the bank guarantee.Consideration and Decision:The Court acknowledged the appeal period was pending and the policy against coercive actions during this period. The Court ruled that encashment before the appeal expiry was improper, quashing the action and directing the bank guarantee not to be encashed until the appeal and necessary applications are filed within two weeks. The Court outlined the process for considering stay applications and waiver of pre-deposit, emphasizing the need to keep the bank guarantee valid until the appeal process is completed.Conclusion:The petition was allowed, and the Court set specific timelines and conditions for the appeal process, ensuring the bank guarantee's protection until the appeal decision. The rule was made absolute with no costs awarded.
TaxTMI 