9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 725X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therein that the respondent - contemnor has violated the direction of this court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-contemnor was due in certain amounts to the Department. The respondent-contemnor had filed an application for dispensation of pre-deposit of duty pending hearing and disposal of the appeal. That relief was not granted. Then he approached this court. A Division B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs from the Tribunal and according to him, already the amount is deposited and the same will satisfy the direction of this court. Therefore, there is no contempt. 4. In this regard, it is necessary to extract the order dated 21.8.1998 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 3479/1998. "..... The appellant is permitted to deposit 50% of the amount in cash within 60 days and regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed an order for pre-deposit of entire amount of demand of Rs. 6,58,90,141/- on 16.6.1998. When the same has been challenged by the accused-respondent before this court, the above said two orders, one by the learned Single Judge and the other by the Division Bench of this court, came to be passed. Pursuant to the above orders of this court, the accused-respondent has filed a memo on 23.10.1998 bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt was liable to be rejected. Since the main appeal itself is pending before the Appellate Authority, the complainants cannot construe that the order of the High Court has not been complied with. 8. We find considerable force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the accused-respondent on these aspects. It is held in Birla Yamaha Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Mirat, 1996 (12) RLT 626 = ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
