<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (4) TMI 1168 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790099</link>
    <description>An unencashed bank guarantee furnished for provisional release cannot satisfy the mandatory pre-deposit required for admission of an appeal under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The statutory deposit must be made before the appeal is entertained, and a guarantee that has not been invoked or encashed does not amount to compliance. Reliance on a circular concerning amounts paid during investigation was held inapplicable because the present matter involved only a bank guarantee, while the cited authorities were distinguished on the basis that the guarantees there had already been encashed. The Registry&#039;s objection was upheld, and the appeal could not proceed without the prescribed pre-deposit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 08:30:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=897519" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 1168 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790099</link>
      <description>An unencashed bank guarantee furnished for provisional release cannot satisfy the mandatory pre-deposit required for admission of an appeal under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The statutory deposit must be made before the appeal is entertained, and a guarantee that has not been invoked or encashed does not amount to compliance. Reliance on a circular concerning amounts paid during investigation was held inapplicable because the present matter involved only a bank guarantee, while the cited authorities were distinguished on the basis that the guarantees there had already been encashed. The Registry&#039;s objection was upheld, and the appeal could not proceed without the prescribed pre-deposit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790099</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>