POLY FILL SACKS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr.Jitendra Malkan, learned Senior Standing Counsel, waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. By consent of the respective parties, for the reasons that follow hereinafter, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal.

(2.) The facts lie in a very narrow compass. The petitioner has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus for quashing the order of attachment of goods dated 6th September 2004 and action of respondent No.3 of invoking and encashing Bank Guarantee No.24/4. A further consequential relief seeking restitution of the position as prevailing before the encashment is also sought. The petitioner had preferred an appeal in accordance with provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act) before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) accompanied by an application for stay of demand. After hearing the parties on 21st May, 1996 an order came to be made by the CESTAT : for the purpose of securing the interest of revenue the appellant was directed to furnish a Bank Guarantee in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac only) within a period of two months and report compliance on 12th August, 1996. It is an admitted position that since then the Bank Guarantee, furnished by the petitioner, has been extended from time to time and lastly on 29th March, 2004, respondent No.4 had informed respondent No.2 that the Bank Guarantee had been extended upto 6th July, 2005.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the order made by the CESTAT staying recovery of duty and penalty amount, an order of attachment (Annexure-D) came to be made on 6th September 2004. This order was followed by invoking and encashment of Bank Guarantee No.24/4 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac only) vide another order dated 6th September 2004.