2019 (11) TMI 834 - SC - Central Excise

Conviction of offences - offence punishable under Section 9(1)(ii) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - The ends of justice would be met if the sentence imposed upon the appellant of two months with fine of ₹ 1 lakh is substituted by sentence of fine for ₹ 3.5 lakhs. The amount of Rs. One lakh as ordered by the High Court has already been paid - The amount of ₹ 2.5 lakhs so deposited in the Registry shall now be appropriated towards fine and shall be made over to the Department - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction and sentencing under Section 9(1)(ii) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Appellate and revisional proceedings leading to the reduction of sentence.
3. Interpretation of statutory provisions regarding imprisonment and fine.
4. Determination of appropriate sentence in the absence of statutory mandatory minimum.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to the appellant being tried for an offense under Section 9(1)(ii) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, resulting in a conviction by the Addl. CJM and subsequent sentencing to imprisonment and a fine. The First Appellate Court upheld the conviction and sentence, which was later revised by the High Court to reduce the substantive sentence but increase the fine amount. The appellant had paid the fine ordered by the High Court, and a sum was deposited with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, after hearing both parties, noted the absence of a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment for offenses under Section 9(1)(ii) of the Act.

Upon considering the entirety of the matter, the Supreme Court decided to modify the sentence imposed on the appellant. The Court substituted the two-month sentence with a fine of ?3.5 lakhs. As the appellant had already paid ?1 lakh as ordered by the High Court, the amount deposited with the Supreme Court (?2.5 lakhs) was to be appropriated towards the fine and remitted to the Department. The respondents were directed to provide the account details for the remittance within seven days. Consequently, the appeal was allowed to the extent of the sentence modification.

This judgment highlights the judicial interpretation of statutory provisions governing sentencing for offenses under the Central Excise and Salt Act, emphasizing the discretion of the court in determining an appropriate sentence in the absence of a prescribed mandatory minimum. The decision underscores the significance of considering the ends of justice while imposing penalties and the procedural aspects of fine payment and remittance.