9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 1260 - SCH - Central ExciseQuashing of prosecution under Sections 9 and 9-AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - quashing on the ground that the CESTAT has granted stay on the recovery of the tax and penalty amount - HELD THAT - It is an accepted and admitted case that the appeal preferred by the respondents is pending before the CESTAT and has not been adjudicated and decided. On examination of stay order which directs the appellant therein, namely, M/s Kavveri Telecom Products Limited, to make pre-deposit of Rs.15 lakhs. Therefore, there is no exoneration or finding on merits by the CESTAT on the subject matter of the criminal complaints. In the said facts, the High Court was incorrect and wrong in quashing the criminal prosecution only on the ground that the tribunal has granted stay, subject to condition of pre-deposit, of the recovery of the tax and the penalty amount. Petition allowed.
Issues: Quashing of criminal prosecution under Sections 9 and 9-AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 based on the stay granted by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (CESTAT).
In the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India, the court reviewed the impugned order that quashed the prosecution under Sections 9 and 9-AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944, citing the stay granted by the CESTAT on the recovery of tax and penalty amount. The court noted that the appeal by the respondents was pending before the CESTAT and had not been adjudicated upon. The stay order required a pre-deposit of Rs.15 lakhs by the appellant, indicating that there was no determination on the merits of the case by the CESTAT. The High Court's decision to quash the criminal prosecution solely based on the stay granted by the tribunal was deemed incorrect and erroneous by the Supreme Court. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order that quashed the criminal complaint in the case. The respondents were given the option to file applications for exemption from personal appearance and under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which would be considered in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court also urged the CESTAT to expedite the appeal filed by the respondents. Any pending applications were disposed of by the court.
|
