Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1993 (6) TMI 61

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Bench and on July 1, 1991 the relief sought by the petitioners was granted. The Division Bench directed that the respondents shall refund the amount within four weeks from the date of order. It was further directed that in case of failure, the respondents shall pay the amount with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of order till payment. The respondents failed to pay the amount within the stipulated period. 2. The respondents took out Notice of Motion No. 388 of 1991 seeking extension of time of two weeks to make the payment. The request was granted by the Division Bench by order dated August 16, 1991 and accordingly, the respondents were required to refund the amount before end of August 1991. The respondents again faile .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pondents should be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 30,18,893.34 together with interest thereon at 15% per annum from July 1, 1991 till payment in addition to committing under the Contempt of Courts Act. Before examining the Motion taken out by the petitioners for committing the respondents for wilfully disobeying the orders of the Court, it would be convenient to take up for consideration Notice of Motion No. 481 of 1991 taken out by the respondents for extension of time to make payment in view of the order of the Supreme Court. It is required to be stated that this Motion is taken out on September 19, 1991, i.e. long after the Bill was introduced in the Parliament providing for amendment of provisions of Central Excise Act in respect of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... his Court, and the respondents cannot decline to do so on the ground that the order for refund in same other matter has been stayed by the Supreme Court while granting ad interim relief. It is necessary also to state that even admitted amount of Rs. 18,86,885.90 as mentioned in Paragraph 6 of the affidavit of the Assistant Collector is not paid. In our judgment, the Motion taken out by the respondents for extension of time to make refund is without any substance and must be dismissed. 4. The petitioners have taken out Notice of Motion No. 453 of 1991 and the petitioners claimed that even though the extension granted by this Court on August 16, 1991 expired on August 30, 1991, the respondents have not paid the amount which was found due. S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Act and then the respondents will dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions. The learned counsel submitted that the respondents may have sought extension prior to introduction of Section 11B of the Act but that would not prevent them from claiming that refund will not be granted unless the respondents are satisfied that the requirements of Section 11B of the Act are complied with. Shri Sethna submits that after the introduction of Section 11B of the Act, it is not even permissible for the petitioners to take out contempt proceedings because the respondents were not bound to obey the writ issued by this Court. We are unable to appreciate any merit in the submission. It is required to be stated that the respondents were initiall .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Sethna referred to two orders dated February 24, 1993 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Notice of Motion No. 345 and Notice of Motion No. 346 of 1992. The Division Bench directed that in view of first proviso to Section 11B of the Act, the Assistant Collector should dispose of the application for refund in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Act. We are unable to appreciate how these two orders can be answer to the contempt motion. We are not aware of the facts in the two proceedings to which reference is made by Shri Sethna and the orders to which our attention was invited also make no reference to the facts of those cases. In our judgment the respondents, on the facts and circumstances of the case, have clea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates