Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.30 seconds)The Customs Act, 1962
Oswal Agro Mills Ltd vs Asstt. C.C.E on 4 February, 1994
3. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that encashment of bank guarantee was not pursuant of any order of the assessment of duty, and therefore, encashment of bank guarantee was not payment of duty for the purpose of Section 27 of the Customs Act; that consequently the time limit specified therein is not applicable; that they had fulfilled the export obligation within one year from the date of import of capital goods and this fact had also been communicated by them to the Customs Department; that if the licensing authority had taken the time in issuing the discharge certificate, the blame cannot be placed on them; that it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Oswal Agro Mills v. Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, 1994 (46) ECC 155 (SC) : 1994 (70) ELT 48 (SC), that furnishing of bank guarantee for disputed Excise duty is not equivalent to payment of the amount of Excise duty and that the Supreme Court has held that bank guarantee is given for the purpose of securing the Revenue in the event of Revenue succeeds in proceeding before the Court; that bank guarantee is the security for Revenue, that in the event the Revenue succeeds its dues will be recoverable, being backed by the guarantee of a bank.
Section 11B in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Pace Marketing Specialties Ltd. vs Cce on 17 October, 2003
He also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pace Marketing Specialities Ltd. v. CCE, Ghaziabad, 2003 (90) ECC 500 (Tri-Del.) : 2003 (157) ELT 36 (Tri-Del.) wherein it has been held that the view taken by the authorities below that "time was to be computed from the date of encashment of bank guarantee for claiming the refund amount, in our view, is erroneous and contrary to the settled law."
1