2020 (1) TMI 419 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - scope of SCN - Fraud - HELD THAT - While giving findings on such tampering with evidence on the basis of Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, handwriting and signature available on those tampered documents were compared and after being satisfied that those were really tampered documents, it was observed by me that fraud was practised on the Court and the appellant was denied relief of any kind since its case was not based on justice equity and good conscience. There is no merit in ROM application which is again based on false pleading like no opportunity was given to the appellant to defend the allegation of fraud and the proceeding was concluded behind the back of the Appellant - ROM application is rejected with a cost of ₹ 10,000/- imposed on the appellant to be paid to the Government Treasury within one month of communication of this order.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistake application, Fraud allegations, Denial of Cenvat Credit, Scope of Show Cause Notice, Tampering of Invoices, Exemplary cost imposition

The judgment pertains to a Rectification Of Mistake (ROM) application where the appellant sought relief after their case was dismissed without findings on all issues raised, resulting in denial of Cenvat Credit. The appellant argued that fraud allegations were not proven, and the Tribunal exceeded the Show Cause Notice's scope by making its case during the order dictation without notifying the appellant. Citing legal precedents, the appellant contended that the Tribunal cannot create a new case beyond the Show Cause Notice's scope and must address all issues raised. The respondent objected to the application, referencing a Supreme Court judgment and seeking its rejection.

Upon reviewing the submissions, the judge noted the respondent's allegations of tampering with invoices and fraud during the case hearing. The judge found that the appellant did not respond to these allegations when asked by the Bench. Subsequently, the judge examined the evidence of tampering using the Indian Evidence Act, concluding that fraud had been committed. Citing the Supreme Court's directive to dismiss cases where the court process is abused, the judge denied relief to the appellant, stating that the case lacked merit and was not based on justice, equity, or good conscience. The judge also criticized the appellant for making false allegations and filing frivolous petitions, imposing a cost of ?10,000 on the appellant to be paid to the Government Treasury within one month.

In the final order, the ROM application was rejected, and the appellant was directed to pay the imposed cost within the specified timeframe. The respondent Department was authorized to recover the cost as a fine or default duty from the appellant if not paid as directed, aiming to deter frivolous petitions and prevent the abuse of the Tribunal's process.