2011 (3) TMI 1660 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Directions regarding hearing of appeals before the Tribunal, release of goods subject to conditions, submission of monthly statements, payment of duty, and renewal of bank guarantees.

Hearing of Appeals before Tribunal: The High Court directed the Tribunal to hear the appeals expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of the order. This direction was given in relation to Excise Appeal Nos. 629 of 2009, 630 of 2009, 631 of 2009, Excise Appeal No. 472 of 2010, and Excise Appeal No. E/488/2010-DB.

Release of Goods: The petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs in cash and furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 2 lakhs from a nationalized bank for the release of the goods in question. The petitioner complied with this order by depositing the cash and providing the bank guarantee, resulting in the release of the goods.

Submission of Monthly Statements: The petitioners were instructed to file monthly statements with the respondent No.1, detailing all footwear exceeding a maximum retail price of Rs. 260 per pair received at their premises after a specified date. These statements were required to be submitted within ten days from the end of each month. Additionally, the petitioners were directed to deposit 50% of the duty in cash and furnish bank guarantees from nationalized banks to secure the remaining 50% of the duty.

Continued Compliance: Until the disposal of the appeals before the Tribunal, the petitioners were ordered to continue submitting monthly statements and making payments as per the previous directions. It was emphasized that all bank guarantees should be kept renewed, with renewal to take place at least one month before expiry upon notice to respondent no.1. Failure to renew the bank guarantees might result in their invocation. The bank guarantees and cash deposits were to be subject to the outcome of the pending appeals before the Tribunal.

Final Instructions: Affidavits were not requested, indicating that the allegations in the writ petition were not deemed to have been admitted. All parties were required to act based on a signed photostat copy of the order, adhering to the usual undertakings.