Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2020 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 203 - HC - Central ExciseRectification of mistake - amnesty scheme - Grievance of the petitioner is only limited to the finding recorded by the CESTAT that petitioner had played fraud on the court - HELD THAT - Having regard to the settlement of tax liability of the petitioner through the amnesty scheme, we would not examine the grievance or otherwise as to the ultimate decision of the CESTAT. We are issuing notice only on the limited issue on the finding recorded by CESTAT that petitioner in the appeal had played fraud and the rejection of the rectification application on this point. Issue notice, returnable within six weeks - Stand over to 3rd November, 2020.
Issues involved:
Challenge to the order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) rejecting rectification application based on the finding of mis-statement or fraud by the petitioner. Analysis: The writ petition challenges the order of CESTAT dated 28th August, 2019, which dismissed the rectification application filed by the petitioner. The original order dated 27th September, 2018, in Appeal No. E/85319 2018, had found that certain documents filed by the petitioner should be considered as mis-statement or fraud, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The petitioner, through counsel, clarified that while the tax demand issue has been resolved through an amnesty scheme, the grievance is solely directed towards the finding by CESTAT that the petitioner had committed fraud. The High Court, taking note of the settlement of tax liability, decided to focus only on the specific issue of the fraud finding and the rejection of the rectification application on this ground. The High Court emphasized that it will not delve into the overall decision of CESTAT due to the settlement under the amnesty scheme. The court issued notice solely on the limited issue concerning the finding by CESTAT that the petitioner had engaged in fraudulent activities during the appeal process. The petitioner was directed to serve the respondents and file an affidavit of service within a specified timeline. The matter was adjourned to a later date for further proceedings. The order concluded by specifying that it would be digitally signed for official purposes, and all parties involved were instructed to act upon receipt of the digitally signed copy. In conclusion, the High Court's judgment primarily revolves around the challenge to CESTAT's decision rejecting the rectification application based on the finding of mis-statement or fraud by the petitioner. The court's decision to focus solely on the fraud allegation, considering the settlement of tax liability, indicates a nuanced approach to addressing the specific legal issue at hand while ensuring procedural fairness in the ongoing legal proceedings.
|