Fraud vitiates judicial relief: misrepresentation on duty deposit deprived the assessee of waiver protection and merit-based hearing.

An appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act was discussed in the context of waiver of pre-deposit obtained on a false representation that the duty demand had been fully deposited. The High Court reiterated that fraud vitiates all judicial acts and that an order procured by fraud is a nullity, so the appellant could not rely on equitable relief or insist on a merits hearing. It further noted that no substantial question of law arose for admission. The appeal was therefore treated as not maintainable on merits and liable to be dismissed against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act was liable to be dismissed where the appellant had obtained interim relief by misrepresenting the facts regarding deposit of the duty demand, and whether any substantial question of law arose.

Analysis: The appellant was found to have misled the Tribunal into granting waiver of pre-deposit by asserting that the duty demand had already been deposited, although the record showed only partial deposit. The Court applied the settled principle that fraud vitiates all judicial acts and that an order obtained by fraud is a nullity. In that situation, the appellant could not claim equitable consideration or insist on adjudication on merits. The Court also held that no substantial question of law arose for admission under Section 35-G.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable on merits and was liable to be dismissed against the assessee.

---