TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (6) TMI 9
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fillment of the conditions as under: - "2. In this regard, I am directed to inform you that competent authority has allowed provisional release of the above said Aircraft under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions: - (i) You will execute a bond for provisional release of the said Aircraft for Rs. 70,00,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Crores only); (ii) You will provide security in the form of a Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs. 16,00,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Crores only). The Bank Guarantee should contain a clause undertaking the self renewal of the Bank Guarantee till the final disposal of the case by the Customs." 2. The petitioner had been issued a Non-Scheduled Operator's Permit (NSOP) and was entitled to carry on Non-Scheduled Air Transport Services. The terms of the said services have been specified in the Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) dated 01.06.2010 issued under Rule 133A of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 by the Director General of Civil Aviation. It is the case of the petitioner that a Non-Scheduled Operator is allowed to operate revenue charter flights for a company within its ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons which have been imposed by the provisional release order of 29.1.2013, we find that the petitioner has been required to execute a bond for the provisional release of the aircraft for the sum of Rs. 70 crores. According to the petitioner, the value of the aircraft is approximately Rs. 67 crores whereas according to the respondents, the market value of the aircraft is Rs. 70 crores and that is why the bond for the said amount of Rs. 70 crores has been insisted upon by the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted at the outset that he is not challenging this condition and that he is willing to execute the bond for the sum of Rs. 70 crores as required by the provisional release order dated 29.01.2013. The actual grievance is with regard to the condition which requires the petitioner to provide security in the form of a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 16 crores. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this condition is extremely onerous, harsh and burdensome inasmuch as it is more than 100% of the differential duty even as per the revenue/respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are no prescribed guidelines for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the following manner:- "Leave granted. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11th May, 2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi directing the appellants herein to clear the goods of the respondents on their furnishing a bond of 20% of the differential duty to the satisfaction of the concerned Commissioner of Customs. The appellants have filed the present appeal being aggrieved by the aforesaid order in respect of which it is being contended that the aforesaid order passed by the High Court is erroneous as the amount for which the bond is to be furnished by the respondents is on the lower side. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking notice of the fact that the goods in question are newsprint which is perishable in nature, we issue a direction that the goods of the respondents shall be cleared by the appellants herein on the respondents' furnishing a bank guarantee of 30% of the differential duty to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Customs. The goods shall be released in terms of this order immediately on furnishing of the afore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Cranes (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India: 2012 (275) ELT 148 (Bom.) = (2011-TIOL-906-HC-MUM-CUS) had taken a different view and had sought to distinguish the case of Navshakti Industries (supra) as decided by this Court. We have gone through the said decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Apollo Cranes Pvt. Ltd. (supra). We may point out straightaway that the said decision has been rendered without noticing the decision of the Supreme Court in Navshakti Industries (supra) which was rendered on 4.5.2011. Moreover, the decision of the Bombay High Court, with respect, appears to have misread the decision of this Court in Navshakti Industries (supra). What this Court said was there was no prescribed procedure or guidelines for imposing conditions with regard to the furnishing of a security and, therefore, as a fall back measure they had adopted Regulation 2 of the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, 1963. This Court in Navshakti Industries (supra) has not applied the said regulations as such because that was not a case of provisional assessment under Section 18. This Court had only applied the analogy of the said regulation in the absence of any other guidelines unde....