Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (2) TMI 666 - AT - Central ExciseDemand - fraud - attachment of the property - department's request for continuance of attachment and directed the appellant to deposit an amount of ₹ 6 crores - appellant's submission that the attachment of the property by the Revenue should be ordered to be released so as to enable him to dispose the same and deposit ₹ 6 crores as directed by the Tribunal - Difference of Opinion - Majority order - Held that:- miserably failed to make out a case, which could justify the reasons how properties under attachment shall be adequate to protect interest of Revenue during pendency of appeal when the very attachment proceeding is quite different and not under appeal before Tribunal and the appellant chose not to place such fact before the Tribunal at the first stage of hearing of stay petition while that was within its exclusive knowledge and not instructed to their Advocates. It is also significant to note that value of the property under attachment is insufficient against the debt of ₹ 80,44,47,396/- due to the State as on the date of hearing the stay application on 27-9-2011. The appellant deliberately suppressed the facts. Truth came out only when discovery process under Section 129C(7) and (8) of the Customs Act, 1962 was resorted to. Dilatory tactics was followed to state the truth to the Courts and revealed in piecemeal abusing process of law. They did not come out with clean hands to deserve consideration. Also they are not able to show how the statutory obligation of pre-deposit during pendency of appeal shall be dispensed or granted concession when they had exclusive knowledge of their financial condition/status due to attachment from the beginning. It was their duty to candidly disclose all their assets, movable and immovable including those in respect of which orders of attachment was passed by the quasi judicial forum. - The facts and circumstances clearly proves that the appellants deliberately suppressed the facts relating to their financial condition during hearing of stay application at the original stage which guided the Appellate Tribunal to order no total exemption from pre-deposit. - Decided against assessee.
|