9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant Shri Vijay G Iyengar , Assistant Commissioner ( AR ) for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR : This appeal is directed against the order F.No. CUS/560/2022-Adjn. dated 16.05.2023 whereby the appellant's request to reconsider the amount of bank guarantee/ cash deposit ordered to be furnished, vide letter dated 19.04.2023 was rejected. In the said order it was directed to furnish a bank gua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e submits that in the said Tribunal decision dated 11.11.2022, against the goods valued at Rs. 4.08 Crores, a bank guarantee was fixed at Rs. One Crore. In the present case the goods are of same consignment by the same importer therefore, following the Tribunal order dated 11.11.2022, the bank guarantee directed by learned Chief Commissioner for Rs. One Crore is absolutely incorrect and illegal on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispute is involved and the only difference is Port of import otherwise in the same facts and circumstances it has been decided in order dated 11.11.2022 that bank guarantee amount was reduced from Rs. 12 Crores to Rs. One Crore. Therefore, there is no reason to defy the order of this Tribunal dated 11.11.2022 for fixing the amount of bank guarantee/ cash deposit to be furnished for provisional re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount, the amount of bank guarantee cannot be enhanced. 6. We do not find any reason that despite this Tribunal passed an order in the appellant's own case which was accepted by the Revenue why different yard sticks can be applied in the present case, particularly when all the facts and circumstances of the case involved in the Tribunal's order dated 11.11.2022 and in the present case are absolute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
