Case Law Details
M S Bharat Udyog Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
In the case of M S Bharat Udyog Vs Union of India & Ors., the petitioner challenged an order dated 20.11.2023, which rejected their request for a refund of a pre-deposit amount of Rs. 22,35,800. This amount had been deposited by the petitioner for the purpose of appealing against an order-in-original dated 31.03.2012. The petitioner contended that since the order-in-original had been set aside and the matter remitted for re-adjudication, they were entitled to a refund of the pre-deposit amount.
The petitioner’s argument was that they had deposited the amount with the intention of appealing against the original order, and since the order had been overturned, they should get their deposit back. The petitioner had initially furnished a Bank Guarantee to secure the provisional release of a consignment. Subsequently, when the order-in-original was passed, the petitioner approached the Tribunal for an appeal. The Tribunal allowed the encashment of the Bank Guarantee to be adjusted towards the pre-deposit amount. However, once the order-in-original was set aside, the petitioner argued they should be returned to the position they were in before the original order, which included getting back the pre-deposit amount.
The respondent argued that the Bank Guarantee was furnished for securing the provisional release of the consignment, not as a pre-deposit. However, the Tribunal had permitted the encashment of the Bank Guarantee for adjustment towards the pre-deposit amount.
The court found merit in the respondent’s contention, based on the principle of restitution, which aims to place parties in the same position as they were immediately preceding the day the subject order was passed. In this case, the petitioner had secured the release of the consignment by furnishing the Bank Guarantee before the order-in-original was passed. Thus, the court concluded that the petitioner should be relegated to the position they were in immediately before the passing of the original order. This meant that if the petitioner sought a refund of the pre-deposit amount, they would need to furnish a Bank Guarantee of the same amount to the department, so that the department was placed in the same position as it was before the passing of the original order.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
