9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (5) TMI 288 - HC - Central ExciseProsecution - Monetary limit - private complaint - Departmental clarifications - Held that - It is of considered opinion that prima facie materials are available on record, requiring full fledged trial by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Thus no valid ground to quash the proceedings. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. However, considering the fact that the case has been pending for about six years, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. It is also made clear that the Trial Court shall not get influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the private complaint under Section 482 Cr. P.C. 2. Determination of the real manufacturer under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Alleged evasion of Central Excise duty and related offences. 4. Effect of the Commissioner of Central Excise's order on the criminal prosecution. 5. Applicability of the monetary limit for prosecution as per the Central Board of Excise and Customs circular. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of the Private Complaint: The petitioner sought to quash the private complaint in C.C.No. 13 of 2002 under Section 482 Cr. P.C. The petitioner, a Senior Marketing Executive at INDAL, was accused of engaging SMALEX to manufacture aluminium extrusions without proper payment of excise duty, thus violating various provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The High Court analyzed whether there were sufficient grounds to proceed with the criminal prosecution based on the materials available, including the final order of the Commissioner of Central Excise. 2. Determination of the Real Manufacturer: The complaint alleged that INDAL was the real manufacturer of the aluminium extrusions under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner of Central Excise held that INDAL was indeed the manufacturer, but dropped the recovery of differential duty on the ground of limitation. The High Court noted that the Commissioner's finding that INDAL was the manufacturer was crucial, as it established the basis for the alleged offences under the Act. 3. Alleged Evasion of Central Excise Duty and Related Offences: The complaint stated that INDAL and SMALEX engaged in a scheme to evade excise duty amounting to Rs. 38,22,550/- by not disclosing their Memorandum of Understanding to the Central Excise Department. The offences cited included Sections 9(1)(a), 9(1)(b), 9(1)(bb), and 9(1)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with relevant rules. The High Court found prima facie evidence supporting the allegations of evasion and non-compliance with excise laws, warranting a full trial. 4. Effect of the Commissioner's Order on Criminal Prosecution: The petitioner argued that the Commissioner's order dropping the recovery of differential duty should result in quashing the criminal complaint. The High Court disagreed, emphasizing that the Commissioner's decision was based solely on the ground of limitation and did not absolve INDAL of being the manufacturer or of the alleged duty evasion. The Court held that the Commissioner's findings on the merits still supported the continuation of the criminal proceedings. 5. Applicability of the Monetary Limit for Prosecution: The petitioner contended that the prosecution should be quashed based on a Central Board of Excise and Customs circular, which raised the monetary limit for prosecution to Rs. 25 lakhs. The High Court ruled that such circulars are not binding on criminal courts and do not limit the court's jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences under the Central Excise Act. The Court held that the circular was irrelevant to the case, as the prosecution involved not just duty evasion but also non-furnishing of required information, which are separate offences. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that there were prima facie materials justifying a full trial and dismissed the petition to quash the complaint. The Court directed the Trial Court to expedite the proceedings without being influenced by the observations made in the High Court's order.
|
