9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent No. 3 - Bank to encash the Bank Guarantee and hand over a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lacs only) to the person authorized by respondent No. 2. 2.The petitioner moved this Court on 31st December, 2004 and with permission from the Court the matter was circulated before the learned Vacation Judge on the same day i.e. 31st December, 2004. On the said date the following order came to be passed by the Court : "Mr. J.M. Malkan learned Addl. Central Government Standing Counsel requests for time. S.O. to 11-1-2005. Mr. Malkan has stated that bank guarantee has been encashed and Draft is already received by the respondent authority, but the same will not be encashed till the next date of hearing." Sd/- (K.S. Jhaveri, J.) The matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fice of the Superintendent, Central Excise, Range-IV, Vadodara-II Commissionerate have been tendered. The deponents of the affidavits have been personally heard by the Court today. It is apparent from the affidavits and the demeanour of the deponents, especially Mr. Vairagkar and Mr. Krishnaswamy, that the default committed in violation of the direction of this Court was not due to carelessness but it was a conscious default coupled with lack of will, if one may say so, to abide by the direction of the Court. In fact there is no reasonable valid explanation for the conduct of these senior officers which can purge them. 5.Mr. Jitendra M. Malkan, has been heard. On request by the Court learned Advocate General has remained present and has ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Tribunal is decided. 8.At this stage, Mr. Joshi submits that the amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lacs only) directed to be deposited by this Court before the Registry of this Court vide order dated 8th February, 2005 may be permitted to be withdrawn so as to restitute status-quo ante viz. revive the Bank Guarantee which was encashed on 31st December, 2004. The learned counsel for the respondents has no objection if this course of action as suggested is adopted. 9.Accordingly, the respondents are directed to await the outcome of stay application moved by the petitioner before the CESTAT and till that point of time, the respondent authorities shall not initiate any proceedings for recovery of demand in pursuance of Order-in-Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
