1955 (9) TMI 1 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against acquittal of the respondent under Section 245(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Interpretation of Section 9(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944) regarding evasion of duty.
3. Consideration of the act of removal of goods from a warehouse in relation to the offense of evasion of duty.
4. Assessment of penalty imposed for improper removal of goods under Rule 144 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
5. Evaluation of the circumstances leading to the respondent's acquittal by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate.

Analysis:
The judgment involves an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent under Section 245(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case pertains to the evasion of duty by the respondent, a private-bonded warehouse licensee, as alleged by the Superintendent of Central Excise. The respondent was charged with evasion of duty amounting to Rs. 12,656/4/0. The prosecution presented evidence of a shortage of stock in the respondent's warehouse, leading to the question of whether the offense falls under Section 9(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944).

The Stationary Sub-Magistrate acquitted the respondent, emphasizing that the evasion of payment of duty, not the act of removal, is the crux of the offense under Section 9(b). The judgment highlighted the provisions of Rule 144 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which govern the removal of goods from a warehouse. The rule stipulates penalties for improper removal, including a fine of up to Rs. 2,000. In this case, the respondent admitted inability to pay the duty and penalty, leading to the auction of seized stock to recover the outstanding amount.

The judgment analyzed the distinction between the offense of evasion of duty under Section 9(b) and the penalty for improper removal under Rule 144. It noted that the penalty had been imposed and collected from the respondent, indicating compliance with the relevant provisions. Consequently, the High Court found no error in the Sub-Magistrate's decision to acquit the respondent. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the acquittal based on the specific legal framework governing duty evasion and penalties for improper removal of goods from a warehouse.