2015 (4) TMI 1188 - SC - Central Excise

Presence of appellant in the office of Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Indore - Held that - learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions given by the appellant, states that he will appear before the Senior Intelligence Officer on 20-4-2015 at 11.00 AM. Under the circumstances, it is not necessary to proceed with the first charge. Submission of false evidence before Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Indore - Held that - we have gone through the letter dated 29-12-2009 and find that it does not contain any statement which can prima facie be said to be false. All that it states is that the appellant was not looking after the day-to-day affairs of the company relating to duty drawback. These are looked after by Mr. P.K. Vyas, Executive Director of the Company and if any statement is required to be made in this regard, Mr. P.K. Vyas may be summoned and his statement will be equally binding on the Company. Having gone through this letter, we do not find any reason which can even remotely suggest that the second charge can be substantiated. Appeal allowed - appellant are directed to be present before the concerned Senior Intelligence Officer on 20-4-2015 at 11.00 AM.

Summary

Issues: Charges framed against the appellant for not appearing before the Senior Intelligence Officer and submitting false evidence.

In this judgment, the Supreme Court analyzed the charges framed against the appellant by the Special Judicial Magistrate. The first charge pertained to the appellant not appearing before the Senior Intelligence Officer despite summons. The appellant, through counsel, assured to appear on a specified date, leading the Court to consider the first charge unnecessary. The second charge accused the appellant of submitting false evidence regarding not overseeing certain company affairs. The Court examined the evidence, specifically a letter dated 29-12-2009, and concluded that it did not contain any statement that could be deemed false. The letter merely indicated that another individual managed the relevant affairs, and the Court found no basis to substantiate the second charge.

The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and quashing the charges against the appellant. However, the Court directed the appellant to appear before the Senior Intelligence Officer on a specified date. The appellant was also instructed to cooperate with any future investigations lawfully conducted by the respondent. The judgment granted liberty to apply in case the appellant failed to appear before the Senior Intelligence Officer on the specified date, ensuring potential further legal action if necessary.