2014 (5) TMI 25 - HC - Central Excise

Acquittal of the respondents for the charge under Sections 9(1)(b), 9(1)(bb), 1(1)(c) and 9AA punishable under Section 9(1)(i) of the Central Excise Act - Non payment of excise duty - Held that - In the absence of proof of contents of Ex. P14, the mere fact that the order of fine was confirmed by this Court, will not be a good ground for conviction of the respondents for the aforesaid charges. Viewed from any angle, the judgment and order of acquittal cannot be interfered with - The trial Court has not drawn adverse inference for producing the Xerox copies. On this aspect of the matter, the counsel has placed reliance on the decision reported in 1990 (10) TMI 362 - SUPREME COURT in the case of Bhoolchand And Another v. Kay Pee Cee Investments and Another. The principle aforesaid relies to non-production of the document and not in respect of the photocopy of the document. Therefore, the principle is not applicable - This is an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal. The Appellate Court will be slow in interfering with such orders. Even if a second view is possible, the one accepted by the trial Court cannot be disturbed. Perusal of the material placed on record in the context of the principle referred to supra, I am of the opinion that the appellant has not made out any grounds to warrant interference in the acquittal order passed by the trial Court - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to judgment and order acquitting respondents under Central Excise Act; Admissibility of evidence including audit report and photocopies of invoices; Non-production of original invoices; Role of Company as a necessary party; Interference with judgment and order of acquittal.

Analysis:
1. Challenge to judgment and order acquitting respondents: The appellant challenged the judgment and order acquitting the respondents under Sections 9(1)(b), 9(1)(bb), 1(1)(c), and 9AA of the Central Excise Act. The trial Court acquitted the respondents after the complainant presented evidence through witnesses and documents. The appellant contended that the trial Court erred in not considering the audit report (Ex. P14) and relying solely on invoices to prove non-payment of excise duty.

2. Admissibility of evidence - Audit report and photocopies of invoices: The appellant relied on Ex. P14, an audit report, to establish non-payment of excise duty by the respondents. However, the trial Court did not accept this report as the author was not examined to prove its contents. Additionally, photocopies of invoices (Exs. P5, P7, P9, and P11) were presented as evidence of sales of Shoe Adhesive Gum by the respondents. The original invoices were not produced, and the appellant failed to collect them during the enquiry, leading to questions about the admissibility of photocopies as secondary evidence.

3. Role of Company as a necessary party: The appellant argued that the Company was not a necessary party in the proceedings, but the respondents contended that except for invoices, there was insufficient evidence to prove the sales of Shoe Adhesive Gum. The absence of material beyond invoices led to the trial Court's decision to acquit the respondents. The appellant's reliance on the audit report and photocopies of invoices was not sufficient to establish the charges against the respondents.

4. Interference with judgment and order of acquittal: The Appellate Court noted that interfering with orders of acquittal should be done cautiously. Even if a different view is possible, the trial Court's decision should not be disturbed unless strong grounds exist. After reviewing the evidence and legal principles, the Court found no justification to overturn the acquittal order. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial Court's decision.

In conclusion, the judgment analyzed the admissibility of evidence, the necessity of parties in legal proceedings, and the standard for interfering with orders of acquittal. The Court emphasized the importance of strong grounds to challenge acquittal orders and upheld the trial Court's decision in this case.