TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (8) TMI 462
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....JDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : Justice K. Sreedharan, President]. - Appeal E/117/86-A was filed by the assessee questioning the correctness of Order-in-Original No. 40/85 dated 19-12-1985 passed by the Additional Collector, Central Excise, New Delhi. As per that order duty demand of Rs. 1,29,530.98 under Rule 9(2) of the Rules read with Section 11A of the Act, made in the show caus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on 30-3-1992 holding that the interest of the department has been adequately protected by directing the assessee to deposit a sum of Rs. 65,000 and to furnish bank guarantee for an equal sum. The deposit to be made and the bank guarantee to be furnished were in terms of the provisions contained in Section 35F of the Act. 2. This Tribunal disposed of the appeal by Final Order 2748/96-A dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en returned to the assessee. In spite of lapse of more than four years the authorities have not cared to take any steps in that regard. Amount deposited and bank guarantee furnished pursuant to the order of stay, which falls squarely within the purview of Section 35F of the Act could not have been retained by the Department after the order impugned in appeal was set aside. When the assessee asked ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vacated in its entirety. Thereafter, amount deposited and bank guarantee furnished in terms of the provisions contained in Section 35F could not have been retained by the Department. 3. Final order of this Tribunal is dated 8-8-1996. Within three months from that date amount deposited should have been returned. This having not been done, the Department is directed to return the amount of Rs.....