1993 (10) TMI 98 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Quashing of further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 5 of 1990 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Allegations of contravention of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and Central Excise Rules, 1944.
- Stay of trial pending appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal.
- Applicability of previous rulings on staying proceedings.

Analysis:

The petitioners, accused in Criminal Case No. 5 of 1990, sought to quash further proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners for contravention of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and Central Excise Rules, 1944, alleging evasion of duty by misdeclaring DHCR yarn as DHPR yarn. The officers seized the stock of DHCR yarn due to discrepancies in the records, leading to adjudication by the Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore, confirming duty evasion and imposing penalties.

The petitioners argued for a stay of the trial pending their appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, stating that the recovery proceedings were stayed as per the Tribunal's conditional order. However, the respondent contended that criminal proceedings and adjudication were separate, parallel processes, and the appeal did not affect the criminal case.

Citing precedents, the petitioners relied on a ruling allowing stay of proceedings before the Tribunal if the appeal and prosecution involved identical issues. The judge noted that while the pendency of an appeal does not bar criminal proceedings, the court may exercise discretion under Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code to adjourn the case in certain circumstances. However, in this case, the judge dismissed the petitioners' argument for a stay based on the current appeal status.

The respondent cited previous rulings by the judge and others, emphasizing that the criminal proceedings should not be quashed solely due to appellate orders. The judge highlighted the essence of the offence under Section 9(1)(ii) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, focusing on duty evasion allegations, which were independent of the adjudication process. Consequently, the judge rejected the petitioners' submission for a stay, ruling that the petition fails and stands dismissed.