TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 319
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion, inter alia prohibiting the further proceedings in R.P. No. A-1258 in O.A. No. 40 of 2001 pending before the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad. (c) Be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction, by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 15-5-2008, passed by the Shri Dharamchand Jain, Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad in R.P. No. A-1258 in O.A. No. 40 of 2001, which is in flagrant violation of Law (Annexure "H" to the petition); (d) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, by holding that the proceedings initiated p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the manufacture of Organic Chemicals falling under Chapter-29 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and was also availing of Modvat facility. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-III passed an order dated 6-12-2000 imposing penalty of Rs. 2,60,000/- as well as an order dated 22-12-2003 confirming duty demand of Rs. 40,68,735/- with equal amount of penalty against respondent No. 3. Thus the total outstanding duties payable by respondent No. 3 were to the tune of Rs. 1,02,37,470/-. On account of failure on the part of respondent No. 3 to make payment of outstanding government dues, an order of attachment came to be made by Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise on 3-12-2004 under Rules 9 and 10 of the Customs (Attach....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the objections as to why action should not be taken against him under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have moved the present petition seeking the reliefs noted hereinabove. 4.Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 5. Ms. M. L. Shah, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the notice issued by the Debt Recovery Officer proposing to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is beyond jurisdiction, as the Recovery Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal is not a Court and that even otherwise, the Recovery Officer has no power to himself initiate contempt proceedings either under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, or under Article 215 ....