2015 (8) TMI 1127 - HC - Central Excise

Quashing of FIR - Demand set aside by CESTAT - Held that - Since petitioners have an alternate and efficacious remedy to seek discharge from trial court by urging the pleas taken herein, therefore, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. - Petition disposed of.

Summary

Issues: Quashing of FIR under Sections 9/9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944

Analysis:
The petition seeks the quashing of FIR No.79/1/2007 under Sections 9/9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944, titled Sandeep Jain v. M/s. Vishnu and Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., on the basis that the demand of duty has been set aside by the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The petitioners argue that since the duty demand has been set aside, continuing the proceedings arising from the complaint would be futile. The petitioners have appeared before the trial court, and pre-charge evidence is in progress. The next hearing date is mentioned as 2nd December, 2015. The petitioners rely on decisions in Biharaj MFG. Co. P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise 2007 (94) DRJ 705, Anil Mahajan & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. 2008 (101) DRJ 473, and Radheyshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal and Anr. [2011] 4 S.C.R. 889 to support their case.

The court notes that the petitioners have an alternative remedy to seek discharge from the trial court by raising the pleas presented in the petition. Citing the Apex Court's ruling in Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Alias Ramu v. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 437, the court emphasizes that inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can only be exercised when no other remedy is available. If a specific remedy is provided by the statute, the court should not intervene. The petition is disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioners to present their arguments before the trial court during the hearing on the point of charge. The trial court is directed to address the raised pleas by issuing a reasoned order.

If the trial court finds that no case is made against the petitioners, the order will not obstruct the discharge of the petitioners. However, if charges are framed, the petitioners can avail themselves of the legal remedy. The court clarifies that it has not delved into the merits of the case, leaving it to the trial court to assess after considering the arguments raised in the petition and the referenced decisions. The petition and applications are disposed of without commenting on the merits to prevent prejudicing the petitioners before the trial court.