AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—On September 28 , 2001, the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, ordered the recovery of Rs. 2,12,15,180
from the petitioner on account of differential duty. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner presented an appeal on October 12 , 2001. This appeal is
still pending. The petitioner has approached the court with the prayer that the operation of the order dated September 28, 2001 be stayed and that
the respondents be directed to comply with the circulars dated June 2, 1998 and July 24, 1998, copies of which have been produced as
Annexures P.15 and P.16 respectively with the writ petition.
Mr. Vikas Suri, counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents should be restrained from encashing the bank guarantee during the
pendency of the appeal. Mr. Rajesh Gumber, learned Counsel appearing for respondents states that the bank guarantee has not been encashed so
far.
After hearing counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the bank guarantee secures the interests of the Revenue. In this situation, we dispose
of the writ petition with the direction that the Commissioner (Appeals)--Respondent No. 3--shall dispose of the appeal finally in accordance with
law, within two months from today. In the meantime, the bank guarantee shall not be encashed in pursuance to the order dated September
28,2001, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P. 10. No costs.