TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (12) TMI 119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioner had obtained several advance licenses from the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT for short) under which the petitioner could import raw materials duty free and the export the final product to the extent specified in the respective advance licences. Accordingly, under the said advance licences the petitioner had imported raw materials duty free and exported the resultant product manufactured by it. 4. During the period 2008-2009, four show cause notices were issued to the petitioner by the customs authorities and the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Pune by four adjudication orders held that the petitioner was liable to pay the customs duty with interest on the duty free imports made under the advance licences, mainly on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce the EODC to show that the export obligation has been fulfilled. The case of the petitioner was that the export obligation was fulfilled under several advance licenses and wherever the negligible quantity had remained to be fulfilled, the petitioner had paid the customs duty and applied for regularization and issuance of EODC by the DGFT and the same are pending. However, the above contentions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) S.T.R. 246 (Bom.), Legrand (India) Private Limited v. Union of India reported in 2007 (216) E.L.T. 678 (Bom.) and a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Lanco Kondapalli Power Private Limited v. Union of India reported in 2009 (242) E.L.T. 340 (A.P.), Mr. Kantawala submitted that in view of the willful disobedience on the part of customs officers in disobeying the decisions of this Court, stern action be taken and further the respondents be directed to forthwith return the amount of Rs.3,57,66,672/- illegally recovered from the petitioner with interest at such rate as this Court deems fit and proper. 8. Mr. R.V. Desai, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand submitted that although the decisions of this Court are binding on the respondents, in the present case, Mr. R. Sekar, Commissioner of Customs, Pune is of the opinion that the respondents are justified in recovering the amount from the petitioner, because, firstly, the CBEC Circular dated 2-6-1998 relied upon by the petitioner is applicable in respect of recovery of dues during the pendency of the stay application before the Commissioner (Appeals) and not before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osal of the stay application bank guarantee will continue and in the event if the Tribunal rejects the application for stay, the said order shall not be executed for a period of two weeks from the date of its service on the petitioners. (emphasis supplied) 10. In the case of Noble Asset Company Limited (supra), this Court held that encashment of bank guarantee pending disposal of stay application before CESTAT is illegal. Similar view is taken in the case of Castrol India Limited (supra). 11. Again this Court in the case of Legrand (India) Private Limited (supra) after considering the Board Circular dated 25-5-2004 and various decisions of this Court as well as the Apex Court held thus:- "9. From the above four decisions, the following prepositions emerge: (a) It is immaterial that in a previous litigation the particular petitioner before the Court was or was not a party, but if a law on a particular point has been laid down by the High Court, it must be followed by all authorities and tribunals in the State; (b) The law laid down by the High Court must be followed by all authorities and subordinate tribunals when it has been declared by the highest Court in the S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ither Section 142 nor the 1995 Rules authorize recovery of customs duty even before the expiry of the statutory period of limitation for filing appeal before CESTAT. In the present case, admittedly, the appeal with stay application has been filed before CESTAT on 9-12-2009 against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 16-11-2009. Statutory period of limitation for filing appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 16-11-2009 expires on 14-2-2010. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, where the export obligation has been substantially complied with and application for regularization on payment of proportionate customs duty with interest and issuance of EODC is pending before DGFT, coercively collecting the entire customs duty even before the expiry of the statutory period for filing appeal is wholly unjustified, especially when no case is made out for initiating coercive action against the petitioner. 15. In these circumstances, we are clearly of the opinion that coercively collecting the customs duty even though one of the advance licences is redeemed by DGFT and even though application for regularization and issuance of EODC in respect of other advance l....