2015 (12) TMI 258

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... prays for a direction to the Tribunal to hear the appeal filed by it as it has complied with the condition of pre-deposit of Rs. 8 lacs. 3. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner is holding Central Excise Registration No.AABCS8756RXM001 for the manufacture of wire and cables falling under Chapter Heading 8544 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On scrutiny of the monthly ER 1 returns, it was noticed that it had stopped manufacturing activities from the month of July 2004. The Range Superintendent asked the petitioner to submit information before shifting of the plant and machinery as it had availed Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 13,00....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ons made by the petitioner and passed the order dated 19.8.2009, Annexure P.3 confirming the demand of duty of Rs. 13,00,604/- alongwith interest and penalty from the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Vide order dated 13.9.2010, Annexure P.4, the appeal was dismissed. Still not satisfied, the petitioner filed appeal as well as stay application before the Tribunal contending that when there was no provision under the Central Excise Rules for payment of duty on capital goods rendered as scrap during the relevant period, then neither any duty could be demanded nor any penalty could be imposed. Vide order dated 13.5.2011, Annexure P.5, the Tribunal directed the petitioner to make ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1. After the lapse of four years, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the same relief. The petitioner has thus concealed the fact of filing of earlier petition in this Court. Consequently, on this short ground alone, prayer for dismissal of the petition has been made. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, we find 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 para 20 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that no such simil....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e. A petition or an affidavit containing a misleading and/or an inaccurate statement, only to achieve an ulterior purpose, amounts to an abuse of process of the court. 36. In Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 2 SCC 114, this Court noticed an altogether new creed of litigants, that is, dishonest litigants and went on to strongly deprecate their conduct by observing that, the truth constitutes an integral part of the justice delivery system. The quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to seek shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the course of court proceedings. A litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice, or who touches the pure foun....