TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 776
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d for other reliefs. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and rejoinder as well as referring to the documents produced by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner imported oxygen sensors and loud speakers for use and inputs in the manufacture of ICU ventilators without payment of customs duty availing the benefit of exemption Notification No.20/2020-CUS dated 09.04.2020 read with Customs (Import of goods at Concession rate of duty) Rules, 2017. Prior to import of the goods, petitioner furnished Bank guarantee dated 08.05.2020 issued by ICICI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the petitioner. 5. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, 'the said Act of 1962') provides for an appeal to be filed by the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of the Order-in-Original dated 10.03.2021, the respondents have illegally and high handedly proceeded to recover the aforesaid sum of Rs. 34,09,343/- by encashing the bank guarantee on 11.03.2021 in a sum of Rs. 5,25,000/- and invoking the continuity bonds executed by the petitioner for the balance of Rs. 28,84,343/- without waiting for the statutory period of 60 days to expire within which the petitioner was entitled to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority. (i) It is point....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ning amount is directed to be refunded / repaid to the petitioner and necessary directions are issued to the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. In support of his contentions, learned counsel places reliance upon the following decisions: i) M/s. Oracle India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others - 2013 - TIOL - 544 - HC - KAR - CUS; ii) Dharampal Lalchand Chug Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Nashik - 2015 (323) ELT 753 (BOM); ii) Rajuram Purohit Vs. Union of India - 2018 - TIOL - 591 - HC - MUM - CUS; iii) Skoda Export Company Vs. Commissioner of Customs - 2016 (343) ELT 140 (DEL); iv) Tamil Trading Corporation Vs. CCE, Tuticorin - 2005 - VIL - 18 - CESTAT - CHE - CU....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... iv) HDFC Bank Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs - 2005 (100) ECC 533; v) Union of India Vs. Valecha Engineering Ltd., - 2010 (249) ELT 167 (BOM) 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submission and perused the material on record. 8. Though several contentions have been urged by both sides with regard to the exemption claimed by the petitioner, the alleged liability of the petitioner to pay the amount stated in the Order-in-Original dated 10.03.2021, the right of the respondents to encash the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner and to invoke the continuity bonds executed by the petitioner etc., the limited point that arises for consideration is, whether the respondents were justified in encashing th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., much less reasonable or sufficient opportunity was provided to the petitioner to prefer an appeal within the statutory period of 60 days and the respondents have hastily and hurriedly proceeded to issue the impugned letters which cannot be countenanced under any circumstances whatsoever and the same deserve to be quashed. 10. So also, learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his contention that the maximum liability to deposit the disputed amount in the appeal already preferred by the petitioner, which is pending adjudication is 7.5% of the disputed amount out of the total sum of Rs. 34,09,343/- as directed in the Order-in-Original; it follows therefrom that in view of my finding that the impugned letters / orders are illegal and....