9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 468 - HC - CustomsProceedings against the officer of the department - Inflation of value of exported goods - bar u/s 155(2) of the CA, 1962 - Section 40 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - The words no proceeding appearing in sub- section (2) of Section 155 of the Customs Act, in my humble opinion, do not include criminal prosecution, as for the protection pertaining to prosecution, there is specific provision under sub-section (1) of Section 155 of the Customs Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, which has been dealt with by the Hon ble Apex Court in Public Prosecutor, Madras Vs. R.Raju & Anr. 1972 (8) TMI 44 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA is not pari materia with sub-section (2) of Section 155 of the Customs Act, and therefore, the bar as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act cannot be made applicable to Section 155(2) of the Customs Act - The petitioner is not claiming the protection under Section 155(1) of the Customs Act and as per the discussions made by me hereinabove, the protection of Section 155(2) of the Customs Act is not available to the petitioner. Thus, there is no illegality in the impugned order. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
Issues:
Petitioner's application under Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 rejected by the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jodhpur. Interpretation of Section 155(2) in light of relevant judgments. Applicability of judgments cited by petitioner. Comparison of Section 155(2) of the Customs Act with Section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Protection under Section 155(1) and Section 155(2) of the Customs Act. Previous dismissal of writ petition seeking protection under Section 155 of the Customs Act. Detailed Analysis: The petitioner, a customs officer, filed a revision petition challenging the rejection of his application under Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jodhpur. The petitioner contended that the goods he cleared were sanctioned by the Textile Ministry but later found to have inflated value upon export to Dubai. The key argument raised was the legal question regarding the applicability of Section 155(2) and the alleged failure of the court to consider relevant judgments, including those from the Apex Court and various High Courts. The Union of India opposed the revision petition, arguing that the petitioner had previously filed an application under Section 155(1) which was rejected and that Section 155(2) was not applicable to the current case due to differences in statutory provisions post-amendment. The Union of India relied on specific case laws to support its position, emphasizing the inapplicability of cited judgments to the present scenario. The High Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the Customs Act, 1962 to arrive at a just decision. Section 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and its amended version post-1973 were compared with Section 155 of the Customs Act, highlighting differences in the protection and limitation clauses. The Court referenced judgments such as Public Prosecutor, Madras Vs. R.Raju & Anr. to establish the applicability of Section 155(2) of the Customs Act and its distinction from Section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. It was concluded that the protection under Section 155(2) was not available to the petitioner, as the specific notice requirement was not met, and previous legal actions seeking similar protection had been dismissed. The Court dismissed the revision petition, emphasizing the lack of merit based on previous legal proceedings and the rejection of a writ petition seeking protection under Section 155 of the Customs Act. The judgment highlighted the specific provisions and their interpretation in the context of the petitioner's claims, ultimately upholding the decision of the lower court.
|
