https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206261 Contempt was not established because the authority complied with the earlier writ direction by re-examining the claim and deciding it under the amended Modvat scheme. The prior order required verification of records and disposal in accordance with law, not grant of credit notwithstanding later statutory amendment. The authority allowed the claim for the period covered by the unamended rule but rejected the balance after Rule 57-H was amended and the relevant credit entitlement was deleted. In the absence of a clear and specific mandate to grant relief despite the amendment, there was no wilful disobedience. en-us Fri, 16 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Oct 2011 11:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206261 Contempt was not established because the authority complied with the earlier writ direction by re-examining the claim and deciding it under the amended Modvat scheme. The prior order required verification of records and disposal in accordance with law, not grant of credit notwithstanding later statutory amendment. The authority allowed the claim for the period covered by the unamended rule but rejected the balance after Rule 57-H was amended and the relevant credit entitlement was deleted. In the absence of a clear and specific mandate to grant relief despite the amendment, there was no wilful disobedience. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 16 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206261