2012 (9) TMI 875

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es. The Hon'ble High Court maintained the quantum for pre-deposit but modified the mode of compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act by laying down thus : "Interim stay is granted subject to furnishing bank guarantee or any valuable security to the satisfaction of the Tribunal to an extent of five crores within ten days from the date of this order." The time for complying with the above direction was extended upto September, 2012 vide Order dated 10-8-2012 of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid Writ Petitions. We are told that the Writ Petitions are pending. 2. In purported compliance with the Hon'ble High Court's direction, the appellant filed a compilation of documents including copies of Sale Deed dated 10-12-2004....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt of stay of recovery of revenue [1985 (19) E.L.T. 22 (S.C.)] relied on; (b) there was no reduction in the security amount already ordered by this Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court only gave two options to the appellant, the first option being production of a bank guarantee. Only after exhausting this option can the appellant think of the second option. It is for this Tribunal to record its satisfaction as to whether the appellant should be directed to produce bank guarantee for entire amount of Rs. 5 crores. The appellant has not indicated any difficulty in obtaining such bank guarantee and producing it. The security in the form of landed property now offered by the appellant can be placed before a bank and a bank guarantee obtained wit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llate Tribunal, one decisive factor which must occur to us is whether the alternative security offered by the appellant is as enforceable as a bank guarantee (1st option). Certainly, it is not so inasmuch as, in the affidavit filed by the appellant Shri Mahesh G. Shetty (said to be the Managing Partner of the appellant), he has given only a limited undertaking which is to the effect that he has no objection in depositing the documents with the respondent. This submission of the deponent is a far-cry from the statutory requirement. The deponent, who has verified and filed the appeal, should categorically undertake that he has no objection to the respondent enforcing this security against the appellant in the event of the latter losing the ca....