1987 (10) TMI 52 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Claims for refund made by the petitioner.
2. Allegations of fraudulent claims and perjury by the petitioner.
3. Show cause notice for prosecution under Sections 191, 209, and 210 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Admission of receiving refund amounts and inadvertent claims by the petitioner.
5. Request for discharge by the petitioner's representative.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to 16 petitions filed by a petitioner claiming refunds as the sole proprietor of a company. The respondents allege that the petitioner had already received refunds for some claims through earlier petitions but had filed new petitions seeking refunds for the same amounts. The respondents argue that the petitioner attempted to obscure the claims' correlation by changing the basis of the refund requests. The court noted discrepancies in the petitioner's filings and directed a thorough investigation into the matter.

2. The respondents further accused the petitioner of obtaining refunds in the names of other entities and colluding with customs officials to deceive the customs department. A C.B.I. inquiry was initiated against the petitioner for these actions. The court found prima facie evidence suggesting fraudulent and dishonest behavior by the petitioner, including making false claims, attempting to secure undue refunds, and providing false statements under oath. Consequently, the court directed the issuance of a show cause notice against the petitioner for potential prosecution under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.

3. In response to the allegations, the petitioner admitted to receiving refunds for some claims and unintentionally repeating claims in the new petitions. The petitioner acknowledged his signatures on refund orders presented by the respondents. The court scheduled the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice and adjourned all petitions for further proceedings.

4. The petitioner's representative sought a discharge from the case, but the court refused until the show cause notice was resolved. The representative was instructed to provide copies of the earlier petitions filed through their office for review. The court emphasized the need for a thorough examination of the petitioner's actions and the allegations raised by the respondents before proceeding with the case further.