TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s have already indicated their desire in this petition that petitioner No. 1 would like to have the amount payable to it in cash. - 10562 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 11-12-2002 - A.R. Dave and K.M. Mehta, JJ. Shri Paresh M. Dave, for the Petitioner. Shri D.N. Patel, SCGSC, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : A.R. Dave, J. (Oral)]. - Rule : Service of rule is waived by Shri D.N. Patel, learned Sr. Central Government Standing Counsel. At the request of the learned advocates, the petition is finally heard today. 2. The grievance, which has been ventilated in this petition, is with regard to non-compliance of an order dated 22-2-2002 passed by this court in the case of the assessee in Special Civil Application No. 1955/99 [2005 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Civil Application No. 1955/99, there was no need to pass any further order but what was required to be done by the respondent authorities was to make the payment as directed by this court. 4. In pursuance of notice issued by this court, learned Sr. Standing Counsel Shri D.N. Patel has appeared for the respondents. It has been submitted by him that the petitioners are under a misconception that the amount, which has become payable under the order of this court, is to be paid in cash. It has been submitted by him that the amount, which is to be paid under the direction of this court, can be paid either in cash or by way of adjustment, as observed by this court. He has placed on record an affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No. 3. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orities is that at the end of the quarter, the petitioners have to submit an application and as and when the application for refund is submitted by the respondent authorities, the amount payable to petitioner no. 1 shall be determined and shall be paid in accordance with law. 7. We have heard the learned advocates and have also perused the judgment referred to hereinabove. Looking to the facts of the case, it appears that petitioner No. 1 had to approach this court in the past as it was not given credit of the amount, which it was entitled to. This court, ultimately, came to the conclusion that petitioner No. 1 was entitled to Modvat credit of ₹ 41,18,212/- and, therefore, it was directed that the said amount should be paid in cash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
