9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sit of certain sum by furnishing Bank guarantee in favour of such authority. The petitioners were entitled to take clearance of the goods in future without payment of differential duty only if the amount of such differential duty is covered by the amount deposited with the Receiver, i.e. the Advocate-on-record of the petitioners appointed under such order. On 12-3-1987, this matter came before a Bench of this Court whereunder Court ordered that if the respondents authorities do not receive any payment in cash within 25-3-1987, the respondents will be at liberty to encash the Bank guarantee forthwith. It is stated by the respondents that Bank guarantee was going to expire on 21-3-1987. The petitioners company did not give any undertaking of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of such contempt application. The contemner came forward with a plea that at the present moment the payment which was directed to be made, has already been made. Therefore the original order or orders cannot be sustained. They have given a break up of differential duties which is as follows : "Differential Duty 1. Due as per order dated 12-12-97 Rs. 15,07,26,077 2. Due as per order dated 30-12-98 Rs. 21,65,67,076 (Corrigendum) 3. Payments made as recorded in the letter of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise dated 16-2-98 6,55,05,966 5,97,00,000 12,52,05,966 Rs. 14,02,05,966 4. Paid in Febru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court, at the most they are entitled to recover the same by executing the said award wherein the State can or may contend that the award is nullity." 7.The reason of holding such view is that money claim simpliciter cannot be converted to a Contempt of Court. 8.According to the petitioners the subject matter was relating to payment of Rs. 95.81 lacs payable under the order of the Court cannot form part and parcel of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. However, the violation of Rule of Contempt is obvious. 9.Mr. P.K. Mallick, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contemners contended before this Court that they were confused by the terms and conditions of the Bank guarantee. The Bank guarantee has two parts which are as follows : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was renewed once inspite of having such clause, therefore, subsequent non-renewal is wilful violation of the order/s. 12.According to me, excepting one particular word in the order dated 12-3-1987 nothing appears to be violative of the order of the Court. Such word is "unwillingness" in the third para of the order itself. Such word is militating with the explanation of Mr. Mallick. At the same time the encashment of the Bank guarantee has been done by the petitioners authorities. Therefore, the question of "unwillingness" automatically evaporates. But it was not evaporated when the Rule was issued. However, at present it appears that the subject matter of dispute become fait accompli in view of the delivery of the goods and payment of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
