9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 258 - HC - Central ExciseRestoration of appeal - pre deposit made - Availment of CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - Held that - CWP No.16013 of 2011 had been earlier filed by the petitioner seeking similar relief. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 30.8.2011. The petitioner has concealed this fact while filing the present writ petition. In the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that no such similar Civil Writ Petition has previously been filed by it before this court or the Supreme Court of India. - Court while dismissing earlier CWP No.16013 of 2011 on 30.8.2011 had extended the time by one month for depositing the amount. The said order also remained uncomplied with as the petitioner never deposited any amount in pursuance to the order dated 30.8.2011 extending the time. The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on 30.9.2011. Besides concealment of factum of filing of CWP No.16013 of 2011 is there on the part of the petitioner disentitling it to any discretionary relief under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, the present writ also suffers from delay and laches as well. - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
1. Compliance with pre-deposit condition for hearing appeal before Tribunal. 2. Allegations of duty evasion and subsequent legal proceedings. 3. Concealment of facts in filing the present writ petition. Issue 1: Compliance with pre-deposit condition for hearing appeal before Tribunal The petitioner sought direction to the Tribunal to hear its appeal after complying with the pre-deposit condition of Rs. 8 lacs. The petitioner had stopped manufacturing activities and faced allegations of duty evasion on capital goods. Despite multiple correspondences and show cause notices, the petitioner denied the allegations but was directed by the Tribunal to make the pre-deposit to hear the appeal. The petitioner failed to deposit the amount due to financial hardship but later complied and requested the Tribunal to consider the appeal. Issue 2: Allegations of duty evasion and subsequent legal proceedings The petitioner, holding Central Excise Registration, faced allegations of duty evasion on capital goods that were rendered as scrap. The Department issued a show cause notice proposing recovery of Rs. 13,00,604/-, which was confirmed by the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals). The petitioner then filed an appeal and a stay application before the Tribunal, arguing against the duty demand and penalty imposition. The Tribunal directed the petitioner to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 8 lacs to hear the appeal, which was not initially complied with due to financial constraints, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Issue 3: Concealment of facts in filing the present writ petition The respondents argued that the petitioner had previously filed a similar writ petition seeking the same relief, which was dismissed by the Court. The petitioner, in the present writ petition, concealed this fact, leading to a prayer for dismissal based on this ground. The Court found that the petitioner had indeed concealed the earlier petition, which rendered the present petition liable for dismissal. Citing legal precedents, the Court emphasized the importance of approaching the court with clean hands and the consequences of misleading or inaccurate statements in legal proceedings. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the present writ petition due to the concealment of facts, lack of compliance with previous court orders, and delay in seeking relief. The judgment highlighted the importance of transparency, honesty, and compliance with court orders in legal proceedings, emphasizing the principles of equity and justice in approaching the judicial system.
|
