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 Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The appellant challenged the encashment of a bank guarantee by the revenue during the pendency of an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the bank guarantee, furnished as security pending final adjudication, does not constitute payment of duty and cannot be encashed without the Tribunal's permission. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal found the revenue's action improper and contrary to Section 27 of the Customs Act, which cannot be used to unjustly retain amounts not legally due. The impugned order permitting encashment was set aside, and the revenue was directed to refund the amount secured by the bank guarantee to the appellant forthwith. The appeal was accordingly allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
