TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... administration. There is no substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 35 G of the Act, which may warrant admission of the appeal - Following decision of KD. SHARMA Versus STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. & ORS. [2008 (7) TMI 851 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Decided against assessee. - EXAP No. D - 1/2013 - - - Dated:- 7-3-2013 - M. M Kumar And Mansoor Ahmad Mir, JJ. M.M. Kumar CJ 1. This is an appeal filed under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1994 Challenging final order dated 31.08.2005 passed by the learned Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi (for brevity the Tribunal‟). The Tribunal has noticed all the false assertions made by the appellant that the demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Central Excise Act, would show that when the goods which were subject matter of dispute are not under the control of Central Excise authorities, then the person keen to appeal against the impugned order is required to deposit the duty demand with the adjudicating aut horities as a pre condition of hearing of appeal unless condition of pre deposit is dispensed with by the Tribunal. 4. The appellant did not apply for dispensing with the condition of pre deposit of duty demand by misleading the Tribunal that the whole amount determined by the Revenue had been deposited. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has approached this Court by filing appeal under Section 35 G. 5. Noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed proposition of law that a judgment decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the court, tribunal or authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. Such judgment decree or order by the first court or by the final court has to be treated as nullity by every court. Superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or eve collateral proceedings. 9. In K D Sharma‟s case (supra) the Court summed up the definition of expression fraud‟ as under :- The Court defined fraud as an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. In fraud one gains at the loss and cost of another. Even the most solemn proceedings s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
