2020 (1) TMI 270 - HC - Central Excise

Contempt petition - alleged violation/non-compliance of the interim order - Petitioner submits that the Assistant Commissioner is writing letters saying that in view of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY PVT. LTD. AND ANR. VERSUS CENTRAL BURUEAU OF INVESTIVATION 2018 (4) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT , the interim order has lapsed and the petitioner should deposit the penalty, but penalty has not yet been realised. HELD THAT - This contempt petition is disposed of with the observation that the judgment in the case of ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY PVT. LTD. AND ANR. VERSUS CENTRAL BURUEAU OF INVESTIVATION 2018 (4) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT is in respect of the interim orders granted by the High Court in criminal and civil cases and not in tax matters. Registry is directed to list the Appeal before the appropriate Court in the next week, which is taking up the jurisdiction of the central excise appeals, so that the matter is decided finally.

Summary

Issues: Alleged violation/non-compliance of interim order dated 22-12-2015 in Central Excise Appeal No. 3 of 2015.

The judgment addresses the contempt petition filed for the alleged violation of the interim order dated 22-12-2015 in Central Excise Appeal No. 3 of 2015. The order from 22-12-2015 stated that the penalty imposed on the appellant should remain stayed until further orders of the Court. The petitioner claimed that despite this order, the Assistant Commissioner insisted on penalty payment, citing a Supreme Court judgment. However, the Court clarified that the Supreme Court judgment referred to by the Assistant Commissioner was related to interim orders in criminal and civil cases, not tax matters. Consequently, the contempt petition was disposed of with the direction to list Central Excise Appeal No. 3 of 2015 before the appropriate Court for a final decision. Both the petitioner and the department were instructed to cooperate in the appeal hearing without adjournments.

The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to court orders, especially in matters of penalty imposition. It distinguishes between the applicability of judgments in different legal contexts, emphasizing that a Supreme Court ruling on interim orders in criminal and civil cases does not automatically apply to tax matters. The Court's directive to list the appeal for a final decision underscores the need for timely resolution of legal disputes, urging both parties to actively participate in the process without unnecessary delays. This case serves as a reminder of the significance of legal compliance and the proper interpretation of judgments within their relevant legal frameworks.