Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2013 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 349 - CESTAT AHMEDABADConvert the encashment of the bank guarantee into the bank guarantee - Tribunal instructed the department not to encash the bank guarantee during the pendency of appeal but Revenue encashed the bank guarantee - Held that:- before the said stay order was passed on 15-3-2011, the Assistant Commissioner had already written to the bank on 7-3-2011 for encashment of the bank guarantee. Presumably, the letter written by the appellant to the department on 15-3-2011 must have been filed in the late hours of the day inasmuch as the order was pronounced in the early hours of the day. It is not necessary that the letter filed in the Receipt Section of the department reaches in the hands of the concerned officer on the same very day itself, especially when it was filed in the late hours of the day. As such, the earliest time at which the said letter intimating the Tribunal’s decision would have reached in the hands of the concerned officer would be the next morning i.e. on 16-3-2011. Before the action could be taken by the concerned officer, the bank has already converted the bank guarantee into the demand draft on 17-3-2011. In these circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the action on the part of the Revenue for getting the bank guarantee encashed was after their knowledge of the Tribunal’s stay order, and was an intentional defiance of the Tribunal’s stay order. The benefit of doubt has to be extended to them - Decided against appellant.
|