ASSTT. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. DUNCANS AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD.
LAWS(CAL)-2002-9-47
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 20,2002

Asstt. Collector Of Central Excise Appellant
VERSUS
DUNCANS AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

AMITAVA LALA, J. - (1.) IT appears to this Court that this contempt application has been placed under the heading 'Old Matters' before this Court and thereafter it was placed under the heading 'Old Adjourned Matters' and ultimately under the heading 'Specially Fixed Matters'.
(2.) IT further appears to this Court that there was an order dated 12 -3 -1982 in a writ petition being C.R. No. 1856(W)/82 whereunder the goods were directed to be cleared off from the custody of the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta upon deposit 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 the renewal of the Bank guarantee till 25 -3 -1987 because according to them that liability of furnishing security is of a new company. However, it has been denied by them. In any event, the Court was pleased to pass a specific order that in view of the unwillingness to renew the, Bank guarantee, the respondents will be at liberty to enforce the Bank guarantee forthwith. On enquiry, this Court has come to know from Mr. N.C. Roy -chowdhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Central Excise Authority that such Bank guarantee was encashed.
(3.) IT appears to this Court that the contempt application was made for violation of orders, one dated 12 -3 -82 and the other orders including the order dated 12 -3 -87 for not renewing the Bank guarantee submitted through the United Bank of India, Canara Bank to the tune of Rs. 95,81,734.08 p. A Rule was issued as far back as on 17 -4 -1989 and thereafter several orders were passed which have virtually in the form of direction.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.