By TIOL News Service

CHANDIGARH, DEC 08, 2015: THE crux of the case is that the petitioner was issued a demand notice for recovery of CENVAT credit of Rs.13,00,604/- allegedly not reversed on capital goods when they were sold as scrap on the ground that the same had rusted and ceased to function.

The demand was confirmed along with interest and penalty and which order was upheld by the Commissioner(A).

The CESTAT, by an order dated 13.05.2011 directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of Rs.8 lakhs.

Aggrieved with this order, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court which did not interfere with the order but extended the period for making the pre-deposit by a month more.

Since the appellant failed to comply with the order of pre-deposit, the CESTAT dismissed their appeal on 30.09.2011.

On 19.02.2015, the assessee deposited the amount of Rs.8 lakhs and filed a petition praying that a direction be given to the Tribunal to hear the appeal filed as it has complied with the condition of pre-deposit.

Clearly annoyed with the conduct of the petitioner, the High Court observed -

++ We find that CWPNo.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 similar Civil Writ Petition has previously been filed by it before this court or the Supreme Court of India. On this short ground alone, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

++ Additionally, this Court while dismissing earlier CWPNo.16013 of 2011 on 30.8.2011 had extended the time by one month for depositing the amount. The said order also remained un-complied 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 CWPNo.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.

After extracting the observations made by the Apex Court in V. Chandrasekaran vs. The Administrative Officer & Ors. on the issue of concealment of facts and where it is held that "if the appellants have not approached the court with clean hands, they are not entitled for any relief”, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.

(See 2015-TIOL-2731-HC-P&H-CX)