9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 117 - HC - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - melting scrap imported under concessional rate in terms of Customs Notification - offence under Section 9 of the Central Excise Act - HELD THAT - Since the statutory appeals are pending before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, against the order dated 22.05.2008, the petitioners are at liberty to pursue the litigation before the Tribunal and as such, this criminal petition is not maintainable. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Proceedings quash under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Alleged offences under Central Excise Act - Abuse of process of law - Maintainability of criminal petition. Analysis: The criminal petition was filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.171 of 2010 on the file of the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioners, A1 to A4, were alleged to have committed offences under Sections 9 and 9 AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondent accused them of irregular availment of CENVAT credit on melting scrap imported under consessional rate, leading to liability determination of ?90,72,736/- along with interest and penalties. The petitioners challenged this order through statutory appeals before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, and subsequently filed a writ petition before the High Court, resulting in modification of interim stay orders. The petitioners argued that the validity of the proceedings dated 22.05.2008 was under examination by the appellate Tribunal, making the filing of the impugned criminal case an abuse of process of law. The High Court noted that the statutory appeals against the order dated 22.05.2008 were pending before the appellate Tribunal. As the petitioners were allowed to pursue their case before the Tribunal, the Court deemed the criminal petition as not maintainable. Consequently, the Court dismissed the criminal petition, stating that the petitioners were at liberty to continue their litigation before the appellate Tribunal. Any miscellaneous applications pending in the criminal petition were also ordered to stand dismissed.
|
