1994 (9) TMI 356 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of complaint and order of summoning under Section 482, Cr. PC.
2. Interpretation of provisions of notification No. 140/83-CE dated 5.5.1983 regarding central excise duty exemption.
3. Alleged violation of provisions of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.
4. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal in matters of penalty and prosecution.
5. Validity of prosecution against petitioners while penalty matter is pending before the Tribunal.

Analysis:

The petitioners sought to quash a complaint and order of summoning under Section 482, Cr. PC related to the manufacture of specific products subject to central excise duty exemption. The complaint alleged violations of provisions leading to initiation of penalty and prosecution proceedings. The petitioners argued that since the Tribunal had stayed recovery and confiscation ordered by the Collector, no cause of action existed for the Department to file a complaint. However, the respondents contended that the petitioners were rightly proceeded against under Section 9 of the 1944 Act for non-payment of duty as per rules and notifications.

The judge, after hearing both parties, concluded that there was no basis to quash the complaint or stay the proceedings. The Collector, as the Assessing Authority, had found the petitioners liable for penalty and prosecution after issuing a show-cause notice for contraventions of rules and notifications. The argument that prosecution could not proceed due to pending penalty decision before the Tribunal was rejected. The judge clarified that under the Act, contraventions could lead to both penalty imposition and prosecution. If the Tribunal ruled in favor of the petitioners, they could seek appropriate relief or discharge during trial.

Consequently, the petition was dismissed without costs, allowing the petitioners to present their defenses during the trial. The judge directed the parties to appear before the trial court on a specified date. The judgment emphasized that any observations made would not impact the case's merits, and the records were to be returned to the trial court for further proceedings.