1991 (12) TMI 59 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-compliance with court orders by Central Excise Department regarding realization of money through bank guarantees.
2. Failure of Collector of Central Excise to carry out orders for refund, leading to a court directive.
3. Application for modification of court order based on an amendment to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.
4. Interpretation of the proviso to the amended Section 11B regarding pending applications for refund.
5. Dismissal of the application based on the interpretation of the law.

Analysis:
1. The judgment highlights the consistent non-compliance of the Central Excise Department with court orders directing the realization of money through bank guarantees. Despite court directives to encash bank guarantees for disputed amounts, the department showed negligence in tracing or maintaining these guarantees, leading to a failure to recover the dues owed to the government. The lack of initiative or effort by the department officials to follow up on these matters was criticized, with the court even resorting to contempt proceedings against petitioners in extreme cases, while no such actions were taken by the department itself.

2. The case involved a situation where the Collector of Central Excise failed to execute an order for refund issued on September 18, 1980, despite a subsequent directive from the court on August 16, 1991, to comply within three weeks. The department's delay and subsequent application for modification of the order, citing an amendment to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, were viewed unfavorably by the court. The court deemed the application as mala fide due to the department's failure to adhere to the original court order and failure to seek an extension within the stipulated period.

3. The judgment delves into the interpretation of the proviso to the amended Section 11B, emphasizing that the provision applies to pending applications for refund that were not dealt with before the amendment came into force. It clarifies that the provision does not nullify final court orders on applications that were already disposed of before the amendment. In this context, the court dismissed the department's application for modification, emphasizing that the amended law does not override the court's prior order.

4. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of dismissing the department's application based on the interpretation of the law and the specific circumstances of the case. The judgment concluded that the application must fail, with no order as to costs. Additionally, the department was directed to provide copies of the order to the respective advocates, with the requirement to obtain a certified copy of the judgment.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment encapsulates the issues raised, the court's observations, and the final decision rendered in the case.