1983 (2) TMI 53 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Criminal appeal for enhancement of sentence filed by the State through Assistant Collector, Central Excise.
2. Accused charged with offences under Sections 9 (b), (bb), (bbb) and (c) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
3. Sentencing by the Learned Magistrate and plea for leniency.
4. Argument for enhancement of sentence by the Excise Department.
5. Interpretation of Section 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
6. Justification of the sentence passed by the Learned Magistrate.
7. Dismissal of the Criminal Appeal.
8. Application for permission to destroy the tobacco stored in the godown.

Analysis:
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay heard a criminal appeal for enhancement of sentence filed by the State through Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Kalyan Division II, against the accused charged with offences under Sections 9 (b), (bb), (bbb) and (c) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The prosecution alleged that the accused had removed goods from the warehouse unauthorisedly and stocked inferior quality tobacco, contravening the provisions of the Act. The accused pleaded guilty before the Learned Magistrate, who considered factors like the accused being the sole breadwinner, no excise duty payable on the date, and financial distress, sentencing the accused to simple imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine. The Excise Department argued for enhancement, citing the minimum penalty prescribed under Section 9 (1) (i) of the Act.

The Court examined Section 9 of the Act, which outlines various offences and penalties, including imprisonment for a term extending to seven years if the duty leviable exceeds one lakh rupees, with a minimum of six months unless special reasons are recorded. The Court noted that the duty amount was not specified in the charge, evidence, or judgment, making it unclear if it exceeded the threshold for the minimum sentence. As such, the Court found no basis for meting out the minimum sentence to the accused, as the case might fall under the provision allowing imprisonment for up to three years or a fine. Consequently, the Court upheld the lenient sentence passed by the Learned Magistrate, dismissing the Criminal Appeal.

Additionally, the State filed an application seeking permission to destroy the tobacco found in the warehouse. The tobacco was reported to be in a deteriorating condition, prompting the request for its destruction. With no objections raised, the Court granted leave to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise Division X, Kalyan, to destroy the tobacco, which was the subject of the case.