Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.31 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Om Shanti Impex & 3 vs Bank Of India & on 13 October, 2017

M/S B P Wire Industry vs Lucknow Prev on 30 June, 2025

18. As regards the arbitrary condition for furnishing Bank Guarantees, as ordered in the impugned order, I observe that this condition has been struck down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Its My Name Pvt. Ltd (supra) and Shanu Impex case (supra). I also find that the Appellant, admittedly and undisputed, is 1 Star Export House and for the goods meant to be exported by such Star Export House, irrespective of the category (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) for Star Houses, the condition for furnishing Bank Guarantees has been relaxed by the specific Circular No. 32/2009-Cus dated 25.11.2009. Further the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases cited supra have been pleased to struck down the condition of furnishing Bank Guarantees as required by Circular No. 35/2017-Cus dated 16.08.2017.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Izi vs Commissioner Of Customs-Nhava Sheva - V on 21 April, 2026

9.2. We have gone through the said judgment and we observe that relevant para-2 of the circular No. 35/2017-Customs was declared as void and un-enforeceable in law by Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Additional Director General (Adjudication) Vs. M/s. ITS MY Name Private Limited, as reported in 2020;DH-2014-DB and relevant para 51 of the said judgment is reproduced in SHANUX Impex cited supra, as reported in 2024(330) E.L.T.78 (DL), with further observation that SLP preferred against the said decision has been rejected by Hon‟ble Supreme Court (para-7). On further perusal of ITS My Name (Respondent) judgment, it would reveal that there was clear observation that para-2 of Notification 35/2017-Customs was found to be contrary to Section 110A of the Customs Act, as it incorporates limitations on provisional release of seized goods which found no place in the parent statutory provisions i.e. Section 110A 14 C/87853 & 87854/2025 of the Customs Act. This being the observation of Hon‟ble High Court and when appellant had demonstratively established that its supplies were meant for Defence and other Governmental Security Agencies that would promote/foster National security instead of breaching the same, and when Ld. Counsel for the Appellant is constantly requesting for early disposal of this appeal so as to enable them to discharge their obligations to make further supply of goods of drones to the Defence against which their pending order is nearing expiry and is under threat of cancellation and when electronic components as well as re-chargeable battery seized in connection with this case are in the nature of out-living its utility, even without its use, at least conditional release of goods in favour of appellant by the Commissioner would have ensured the ends of justice, which he failed to do. Hence we do so.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1