Commissioner of Central Excise & Anr. Vs. M/s. Usha Udyog & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 7331-32 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11166-11167 of 2001)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11166-11167 of 2001)
Petitioner: Commissioner of Central Excise & Anr.
Respondent: M/s. Usha Udyog & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 7331-32 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11166-11167 of 2001)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11166-11167 of 2001)
Judges: S.P. BHARUCHA, Y.K. SABHARWAL & ASHOK BHAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 19, 2001
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Central Excise Act, 1944
Appeals – Waiver of deposit – Tribunal directing deposits – Orders upheld by Delhi High Court and Supreme Court – Tribunal moved again but orders maintained – Fresh writ at Allahabad High Court – Pre-deposit reduced – Orders stayed by Supreme Court – Still appeals before tribunal pursued on deposit of reduced amount – Appeals decided – Neither party pointing out as to what transpired earlier. Held that Allahabad High Court’s orders set-aside. Since a fraud has been played upon. Allahabad High Court and tribunal was also not told about stay of orders, suo-motu contempt notices issued to writ petitioners. Judgment of tribunal also stayed. (Paras 4 to 6 and 7)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The orders under challenge were passed by a division bench of the High Court at Allahabad on writ petitions filed by the respondents.
3. The revenue, which was the respondent to the writ petitions, is in appeal.
4. The matter relates to appeals (E/1050/98-B and E/1051/98-B) before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. On the application of the assessees for waiver of deposits, the tribunal directed, on 26th May, 1998, that the respondents deposit rupees fifty lakhs and sixty lakhs respectively as a pre-condition. These orders were challenged by the assessees before, and upheld by the Delhi High Court. They were challenged further before this Court and upheld by this Court. This Court observed that the issue of natural justice, alleged by the respondents, was still to be decided. For this reason, the assessees moved the tribunal again. They were heard and on 9th October, 2000, the tribunal ordered that the pre-deposits of rupees fifty lakhs and sixty lakhs would stand. Thereupon, the assessees moved writ petitions, now before the Allahabad High Court for reduction of the amounts of the pre-deposits. The orders under challenge were passed whereby the pre-deposits were reduced to rupees ten lakhs for each assessee.
5. On 10th July, 2001 this Court, in these proceedings, stayed the orders of the Allahabad High Court. Regardless, the appeals were pursued by the respondents before the tribunal, on pre-deposits of only rupees ten lakhs each. On 12th August, 2001, we are told, the tribunal reserved orders on the appeals, and, on 10th September, 2001, decided them in favour of the assessees.
6. It is clear that, having regard to the first orders of the tribunal and their being upheld both by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, the assessees could not have moved the Allahabad High Court. They do not seem to have pointed out what had transpired earlier (nor, it would seem, did the revenue). The order that was obtained from the Allahabad High Court, which is under challenge, has, therefore, to be set aside.
7. The civil appeals are allowed and the order under challenge is set aside.
8. A fraud would appear to have been played by the assessees on the Allahabad High Court in not disclosing the events that had transpired prior to their writ petitions. The tribunal also, apparently, was not told that the order of the Allahabad High Court had been stayed by this Court on 10th July, 2001. The tribunal was allowed to remain in ignorance, to reserve its judgment and thereafter to pronounce it.
9. Two consequences follow: one, a notice suo motu shall issue to M/s. Usha Udyog Limited, its managing director, and K.K. Singh, who is of Girish Rolled Products Limited, Kanpur, who would appear to have filed the writ petition on its behalf, and to M/s. R.H.L. Profiles Limited and its President, K.K. Somani, resident of Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur, returnable on 7th December, 2001, to show cause why they should not be punished for criminal contempt of court for having subverted the course of justice.
10. The second consequence is that the orders of the tribunal dated 10th September, 2001 in the appeals (nos. 1050/98-B and 1051/98-B) shall remain stayed, pending further orders.
1. Leave granted.
2. The orders under challenge were passed by a division bench of the High Court at Allahabad on writ petitions filed by the respondents.
3. The revenue, which was the respondent to the writ petitions, is in appeal.
4. The matter relates to appeals (E/1050/98-B and E/1051/98-B) before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. On the application of the assessees for waiver of deposits, the tribunal directed, on 26th May, 1998, that the respondents deposit rupees fifty lakhs and sixty lakhs respectively as a pre-condition. These orders were challenged by the assessees before, and upheld by the Delhi High Court. They were challenged further before this Court and upheld by this Court. This Court observed that the issue of natural justice, alleged by the respondents, was still to be decided. For this reason, the assessees moved the tribunal again. They were heard and on 9th October, 2000, the tribunal ordered that the pre-deposits of rupees fifty lakhs and sixty lakhs would stand. Thereupon, the assessees moved writ petitions, now before the Allahabad High Court for reduction of the amounts of the pre-deposits. The orders under challenge were passed whereby the pre-deposits were reduced to rupees ten lakhs for each assessee.
5. On 10th July, 2001 this Court, in these proceedings, stayed the orders of the Allahabad High Court. Regardless, the appeals were pursued by the respondents before the tribunal, on pre-deposits of only rupees ten lakhs each. On 12th August, 2001, we are told, the tribunal reserved orders on the appeals, and, on 10th September, 2001, decided them in favour of the assessees.
6. It is clear that, having regard to the first orders of the tribunal and their being upheld both by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, the assessees could not have moved the Allahabad High Court. They do not seem to have pointed out what had transpired earlier (nor, it would seem, did the revenue). The order that was obtained from the Allahabad High Court, which is under challenge, has, therefore, to be set aside.
7. The civil appeals are allowed and the order under challenge is set aside.
8. A fraud would appear to have been played by the assessees on the Allahabad High Court in not disclosing the events that had transpired prior to their writ petitions. The tribunal also, apparently, was not told that the order of the Allahabad High Court had been stayed by this Court on 10th July, 2001. The tribunal was allowed to remain in ignorance, to reserve its judgment and thereafter to pronounce it.
9. Two consequences follow: one, a notice suo motu shall issue to M/s. Usha Udyog Limited, its managing director, and K.K. Singh, who is of Girish Rolled Products Limited, Kanpur, who would appear to have filed the writ petition on its behalf, and to M/s. R.H.L. Profiles Limited and its President, K.K. Somani, resident of Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur, returnable on 7th December, 2001, to show cause why they should not be punished for criminal contempt of court for having subverted the course of justice.
10. The second consequence is that the orders of the tribunal dated 10th September, 2001 in the appeals (nos. 1050/98-B and 1051/98-B) shall remain stayed, pending further orders.
