2020 (11) TMI 656 - DSC - Central Excise

Grant of Anticipatory Bail - excise duty evasion case of ₹ 150 crores - It is submitted that investigation in the present case has already been concluded and the amount deposited by the applicant/accused is sought to be adjusted towards the final adjudicated amount - HELD THAT - The applicant/accused is alleged to be involved in a duty evasion case of ₹ 150 crores. Even during the course of investigation, it is informed that he was not forthcoming on certain vital issues of investigation and he is giving evasive replies to the query of the investigating agency - Ld. SPP has informed the court that applicant accused is involved in the commission of an offence u/s 9 (b), (bb), (bbb) and (bbbb) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is further informed by Ld. counsel for department that applicant/accused is playing hide and seek and intends to take undue benefit of the fact that after five years of the commencement of investigation i.e. September 2020, as investigation commenced in September, 2015, the department would not be in a position to take the investigation to a logical conclusion Considering the nature of allegations involved in the present case,this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant/accused, hence, his bail application stands rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of anticipatory bail in a duty evasion case involving alleged evasion of ?150 crores, applicant's cooperation in investigation, necessity of custodial interrogation, legal precedents on economic offences and bail, conduct of the Complainant Department.

Grant of Anticipatory Bail:
The applicant/accused sought anticipatory bail in a duty evasion case where the investigation had concluded, and the deposited amount was to be adjusted. The applicant denied the allegations, citing no illegal activities and clean antecedents. The department opposed, alleging evasion of excise duty amounting to ?150 crores and lack of cooperation from the applicant, who was linked to unregistered units. The court noted the seriousness of economic offences and the need for custodial interrogation to unravel crucial aspects of the case. Legal precedents emphasized the gravity of economic offences and the need for a different approach to bail, considering the severity of accusations and public interest.

Necessity of Custodial Interrogation:
The court found the custodial interrogation of the applicant essential due to non-cooperation during investigation and evasive responses. The applicant's admission of involvement in manufacturing without valid registration further raised concerns. Legal precedents highlighted the advantage of custodial interrogation in eliciting crucial information and materials, especially in cases involving economic offences and well-orchestrated conspiracies.

Legal Precedents on Economic Offences and Bail:
Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized that economic offences should be treated differently, with bail not granted as a routine matter. The severity of economic offences affecting public funds and the economy warranted a serious approach to bail decisions. The court rejected the anticipatory bail application, considering the nature of allegations and the potential harm to the investigation and public interest if bail were granted.

Conduct of the Complainant Department:
The court expressed concern over the lethargic conduct of the Complainant Department, noting a lack of effective investigation between 2017 and 2019 in a case alleging duty evasion of ?150 crores. The court highlighted the ephemeral nature of evidence in criminal matters and the onerous task of investigating tax matters within a fixed timeframe. The Principal DG, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) was requested to personally review the matter and take appropriate action against erring officials, emphasizing the need for timely and thorough investigation in such cases.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues involved comprehensively, addressing the legal arguments, factual circumstances, and the court's reasoning in rejecting the anticipatory bail application and highlighting the concerns regarding the conduct of the Complainant Department.