TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal could restrain the department from encashing the bond and bank guarantee furnished for provisional release of seized goods and a truck in proceedings under the Central Excise Act, and whether the applicant was entitled to such protection after voluntarily executing the bond and failing to produce the goods as required.
Analysis: The goods and the truck had been released on the applicant's own undertaking under a B-11 bond and security. The bond required production of the released goods before the adjudicating authority, but the goods were not produced. In these circumstances, the applicant could not seek a direction to prevent enforcement of the security. The requested restraint on encashment was also outside the scope of the pending request concerning pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Conclusion: The request to restrain encashment of the bank guarantee was not maintainable, and relief was refused.
Final Conclusion: The application for interim protection against encashment of the security was rejected, leaving the earlier order undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: A party that voluntarily furnishes bond and security for release of seized goods cannot later seek restraint against enforcement of that security when the bond conditions are not fulfilled, especially where the requested relief lies outside the scope of the pre-deposit jurisdiction.
TaxTMI 
