Karnataka High Court
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Vikrant Tyres Ltd. on 4 October, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000(67)ECC363
Author: A.V. Srinivasa Reddy
Bench: A.V. Srinivasa Reddy
ORDER
1. This contempt petitional is filed stating 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 of 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 Bench to this Court passed an order modifying the order of the learned Single Judge and the respondent-contemnor herein was permitted to deposit 50% of the amount in cash within 60 days and regarding the balance amount of 50% he should get instructions from the Tribunal, by filing an application before the Tribunal in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
3. It is the case of the complainants that the respondent- contemner, as directed by this Court, has not deposited 50% of the amount within the time granted by this Court. Therefore, this contempt petition is filed. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent-contemnor contended that this Court directed him to deposit 50% of the amount in cash and regarding the balance 50% of the amount he should obtain further orders 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 regarding the balance amount of 50%, he should get instructions from the Tribunal by filing an application before the Tribunal in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The learned Single Judge by his order dated 20.7.1998 has ordered:
...I consider it proper that the petitioner is required to deposit 50% of the amount in cash and the balance amount to be furnished within the time permitted by the Tribunal. Order dated 16.6.1998 stands modified accordingly.
5. In the light of the above said orders of this Court, by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench, the question that arises for our consideration is whether the respondent/accused has complied with the directions or not.
6. It is the case of the accused-respondent that the 4th complainant has passed 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 before the Tribunal to the effect that the amount directed to be paid had been paid by debiting in RG 23A Part II. Therefore, depositing of amount of 50% of the duty amount by debit entry in RG 23A Part II amounts to compliance of the court order inasmuch as the same amounts to payment by cash.
7. The learned Counsel for the Accused-respondent has relied on a reported decision of High Court of Judicature, Allababad in to the effect that the debit of the amount in RG 23A, Part II Register tantamounts to compliance of direction of deposit of 50% of the duty amount. Further, the learmed counsel has alternatively contended that if the requirement of pre-deposit as envisaged by the complainants is not complied, the only consequence is that the appeal filed by the accused-respondent 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 v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut 1996 (12) RLT 626 that when there is a credit available in the Modvat account that can be utilised to pay the duty in pursuance of the demand and pre-deposit of duty which can also be made by debiting in RG 23A Part II, subject to the final orders of the Appellate Authority. We are in respectful agreement with the said principle and therefore hold that payment of amount by a debit entry in RG 23A Part II is in compliance and also amounts to payment by cash.
Therefore, having regard to the principles laid down in various decisions, we find that there is no wilful disobedience as contended by the complainants. We are satisfied that there has been compliance in terms of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of this Court.
This contempt petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations.