2015 (10) TMI 702 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of petition - Held that - Court has gone through the impugned judgment of the First Revisional Court and finds no infirmity in the same. This is the second revision filed by the Department in this Court, which is not maintainable - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the order dated 24.04.1992 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 9 and 9AA of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Revision petition filed by the department against the order dated 24.04.1992.
3. Decision of the Sessions Judge, Amritsar on the revision petition.
4. Admissibility of the second revision filed by the Department in the High Court.

Analysis:

1. The judgment addresses the validity of the order dated 24.04.1992 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 9 and 9AA of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The order stated that criminal proceedings against the accused cannot continue and they were discharged. However, it allowed the revenue to file a fresh complaint if evasion of Central Excise Duty is found after adjudication proceedings. The department filed a revision against this order.

2. The revision petition filed by the department was heard by the Sessions Judge, Amritsar, who set aside the order dated 24.04.1992. The Sessions Judge accepted the department's revision petition, leading to the trial court record being returned and the appeal file being consigned.

3. The judgment further mentions that the Department filed a revision before the High Court assailing the judgments of both lower courts. However, the High Court found no infirmity in the order of the Sessions Judge. It was noted that as the impugned order favored the department by allowing a fresh complaint, the petitioner had no grounds to challenge the Sessions Judge's order at that stage.

4. Finally, the High Court dismissed the second revision filed by the Department, citing Section 399(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which states that the decision of the Sessions Judge in a revision petition shall be final, and no further revision by the same person shall be entertained. The High Court held that no second revision was maintainable in this case and dismissed the revision petition as not maintainable.