1999 (4) TMI 92 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a Central Excise Officer is debarred from arresting a person without a warrant under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Summary:

Issue 1: Authority of Central Excise Officer to Arrest Without Warrant

The primary question addressed in this judgment is whether a Central Excise Officer can arrest a person without a warrant if they have reasons to believe the person is liable to be punished under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Facts of the Case:
The petitioner, Managing Director of M/s. GCUL Limited, claimed that the company, a 100% Export Oriented Unit, was exempt from paying Central Excise Duty. Allegations were made against the company for evading Central Excise Duty to the tune of Rs. 40 crores. The petitioner and other company officials were summoned, and statements were recorded. The petitioner feared arrest and applied for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed by the court.

Legal Provisions Considered:
- Section 9A: Offences under Section 9 are deemed non-cognizable.
- Section 13: Empowers Central Excise Officers to arrest any person they believe is liable to punishment under the Act.
- Section 14: Authorizes officers to summon individuals for evidence or documents.
- Section 18: Mandates that searches and arrests under the Act follow the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Court's Analysis:
The court noted that Section 9A deems offences non-cognizable, implying that a police officer cannot arrest without a warrant. However, Section 13 provides Central Excise Officers with substantive power to arrest without a warrant if they have reason to believe the person is liable to punishment. The procedural safeguards of Section 18 ensure that arrests and searches are conducted in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that Section 13 confers substantive power to Central Excise Officers to arrest without a warrant, and Section 18 merely regulates the exercise of this power. The court rejected the petitioners' contention that no arrest could be made without a warrant and upheld the authority of Central Excise Officers to arrest without a warrant under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Final Judgment:
Both writ petitions were dismissed, and the court found no grounds to interfere with the actions of the Central Excise authorities. The parties were left to bear their own costs.