https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775915 The CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order that permitted the Revenue to encash the bank guarantee furnished by the appellant during the pendency of the appeal. Relying on SC precedents, the Tribunal held that the bank guarantee serves as security and cannot be treated as duty payment before final adjudication. The Revenue's act of encashing the guarantee without Tribunal's permission was improper, and Section 27 of the Customs Act was inapplicable. The disputed amount did not constitute legally due duty, and the Revenue was directed to refund the encashed amount to the appellant forthwith. en-us Wed, 30 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Aug 2025 07:24:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775915 The CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order that permitted the Revenue to encash the bank guarantee furnished by the appellant during the pendency of the appeal. Relying on SC precedents, the Tribunal held that the bank guarantee serves as security and cannot be treated as duty payment before final adjudication. The Revenue's act of encashing the guarantee without Tribunal's permission was improper, and Section 27 of the Customs Act was inapplicable. The disputed amount did not constitute legally due duty, and the Revenue was directed to refund the encashed amount to the appellant forthwith. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 30 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775915