1999 (8) TMI 215

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....med the differential duty of Rs. 17,44,735/-. He ordered confiscation of some other goods but permitted its redemption on payment of appropriate fine. He imposed penalty on M/s. Sidhseva Exports. During the proceedings, M/s. Sidhseva Exports had voluntarily deposited an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs. They had also executed a bond with Bank Guarantee for Rs. 32,88,000/-. The Commissioner appropriated the deposit made towards the duty payable and apportioned the remaining to payment of duty and penalty. The remainder of the fine and penalty was directed to be apportioned from the Bank Guarantee. Towards this purpose, his order directed enforcement of the Bank Guarantee. This order dated 26-3-1999 was issued on 20-7-1999 and was received by the impor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... today. 2. When the Misc. application was called out, Shri Vipin Kumar Jain informed the Tribunal that the bank had already credited the amount to the Government Account. He would request us to direct the bank not to debit the accounts of the applicants until disposal of their stay application before us. 3. We have considered this request. We have seen and are aware of the various instructions given by the Central Board of Excise & Customs to their executive officers. We are also aware of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court that the departmental instructions have binding effect on the jurisdictional officers. We have also seen the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. U.O.I. [1992 (5....