1993 (6) TMI 61 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Contempt of court for wilfully refusing to obey court orders.
2. Extension of time for refund based on the introduction of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a refund of amounts recovered without legal authority. The Division Bench granted the relief, directing the respondents to refund the amount within four weeks. Despite extensions granted, the respondents failed to make the refund. The petitioners then filed a Notice of Motion for contempt of court against the respondents for not obeying the court orders. The respondents argued for an extension of time based on an ad interim stay granted by the Supreme Court in a different matter. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the respondents cannot refuse to refund based on another matter's stay order. The court found the respondent's motion for an extension without merit and dismissed it.

2. The respondents claimed that after the introduction of Section 11B of the Act, they were not bound to obey the court orders for refund. They argued that the petitioners should seek remedy under Section 11B instead. The court disagreed, stating that the respondents were required to make the refund as per the court's orders before the introduction of Section 11B. The court found the respondents in contempt for not making the refund by the specified deadline. The court emphasized that the respondents did not seek any variation of the court order before the introduction of Section 11B and only raised this defense during contempt proceedings. The court held the respondents in contempt and imposed a fine on the Assistant Collector of Central Excise.

3. The court committed the Assistant Collector under the Contempt of Courts Act and imposed a fine. The court directed the respondents to pay the outstanding amount to the petitioners within one week. Additionally, the court ordered the respondents to pay the petitioner's costs. The respondents' request for a stay of the order was refused by the court, emphasizing the urgency of compliance with the court's directives.