2017 (2) TMI 93 - HC - Central Excise

End use verification - respondent had used H-100 EY Grade granules in the production of plastic woven sacks. Whether the company had used such material in their production or not was the main question - Held that - the court has observed that there was total disconnect as regards the material that could be seized and the investigation that could have been made in respect of an event which had occurred much earlier. Hence, the date on which the investigation was said to have been commenced itself being inconsistent and not reconcilable, the court below on a detailed discussion of the evidence which has again not supported the case of the prosecution having acquitted the accused, cannot be faulted. Appeal rejected.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Special leave application for grant of special leave
2. Use of H-100 EY Grade granules in production of plastic woven sacks
3. Disconnect in investigation timeline and material seized
4. Allegations of delayed investigation and prosecution

Special leave application for grant of special leave:
The judgment of the Trial Court was well-reasoned and detailed. The appellant contended that the accused had used H-100 EY Grade granules in the production of plastic woven sacks. However, the court observed a disconnect in the timeline of investigation and seizures, leading to the conclusion that the investigation was belated and inconsistent with the events in question. The court found no fault in the lower court's decision to acquit the accused based on the lack of supporting evidence and the delayed nature of the investigation.

Use of H-100 EY Grade granules in production of plastic woven sacks:
The main issue revolved around whether the accused had used H-100 EY Grade granules in the production of plastic woven sacks. The court highlighted the importance of examining the evidence tendered and noted discrepancies in the timeline of events. The investigation was found to be incongruent with the period in question, leading to doubts about the validity of the prosecution's case. The court's detailed analysis revealed inconsistencies that supported the lower court's decision to acquit the accused.

Disconnect in investigation timeline and material seized:
The court pointed out a significant gap between the date of investigation and the period to which the offenses related. The mahazar of seizures was dated the same as the investigation, which was much later than the events under scrutiny. This disconnect raised doubts about the reliability and relevance of the material seized and the subsequent investigation. The court emphasized the importance of a coherent timeline in criminal proceedings, highlighting the inconsistencies that undermined the prosecution's case.

Allegations of delayed investigation and prosecution:
The appellant argued for a closer examination of the matter, but the court found that the investigation and prosecution were conducted after a considerable delay. The court metaphorically likened the situation to closing barn doors after the horse has bolted, indicating that the actions taken were too late to be effective. Consequently, the court rejected the appeal, concluding that there was no merit in the petition and no basis for granting special leave.