Delhi High Court
M/S. Patel Engineering Limited vs National Thermal Power ... on 31 January, 2017
$~44
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 31.01.2017
+ W.P.(C) 1518/2016 & CM Nos.6552/2016 (directions),
43349/2016 (directions)
M/S. PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED ..... Petitioner
versus
NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION & ANR.
..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ananga
Bhattacharya, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath with Mr. Onkar Nath, Advocates for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC with Ms. Mohita, Advocate for
respondent No.2.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
31.01.2017
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner, by the present petition, has sought a direction to
the respondent No.1- National Thermal Power Corporation to pay to
the Commissioner of Customs the customs duty alongwith the
applicable interest on the import of Hot Rolled Plates under advance
authorizations dated 03.07.2008 and 10.02.2009 for Loharinag Pala
Hydro Electric Power Project, District Uttarkashi, Uttarakhand.
2. The petitioner, who had been awarded the contract of the
project, for execution of the said project, had imported Hot Rolled
Plates under advance authorizations. Since the project did not go
through, the Hot Rolled Plates, imported by the petitioner, were
diverted by the respondents for another project.
3. The issue relates to securing the payment of customs duty on
the said plates that were imported under the advance authorizations.
4. The petitioner had furnished a bank guarantee in the sum of
Rs.8,15,00,000/- to the Customs Authorities, for securing the claim of
custom duty. The petitioner has sought release of the bank guarantee
because the Hot Rolled Plates, imported for the project of the
respondent Nos.1 and 3, consequent to the scrapping of the project,
have been diverted by the respondent No.1 for being utilized in some
other project.
5. The petitioner contended that the respondent No.1 had agreed to
replace the bank guarantee, submitted by the petitioner to the Custom
Authorities, with a bank guarantee of the respondent No.1.
6. On 23.11.2016, this Court had noted the contentions of the
petitioner that, by letter dated 22.10.2016, the respondent No.1 had
reiterated its commitment that the bank guarantee furnished by the
petitioner would be replaced by a bank guarantee of the respondent
No.1.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, under
instructions, submits that NTPC is willing to replace the bank
guarantee in the sum of Rs.8,15,00,000/-, furnished by the petitioner
to the Custom Authorities, with a bank guarantee of NTPC.
8. In view of the above statement, the writ petition is disposed of
directing the respondent No.1 to approach the Custom Authorities for
the replacement of the bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.8,15,00,000/-
furnished by the petitioner. The petitioner shall afford all assistance
for the said purpose and both the parties shall execute such necessary
documents, as may be required by the Customs Authorities, for
replacement of the bank guarantee.
9. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JANUARY 31, 2017
st
