Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (2) TMI 365

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... other alternative except to correct his order under section 154 of the Act as per the directions of the Tribunal. See K.C.Builders and another versus ACIT [2004 (1) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT]. Thus Complaint dated 7.7.2000 as well as subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order quashed. - Crl. Misc. M No. 67804 of 2005(O&M) - - - Dated:- 8-2-2013 - Mrs.Sabina,J. Ms.Jaishree Thakur, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms.Ranjana Shahi,Advocate for the respondent. Sabina, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the complaint dated 7.7.2000 (Annexure P1) and summoning order Annexure P2 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oceedings will be illegal and without jurisdiction. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax cannot proceed with the prosecution even after the order of concealment has been set aside by the Tribunal. When the Tribunal has set aside the levy of penalty, the criminal proceedings against the appellants cannot survive for further consideration. In our view, the High Court has taken the view that the charges have been framed and the matter is in the stage of further cross-examination and, therefore, the prosecution may proceed with the trial. In our opinion, the view taken by the learned magistrate and the High Court is fallacious. In our view, if the trial is allowed to proceed further after the order of the Tribunal and the consequent cancell .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uct under sub-heading no. 6002.30 under Rule 173-B and confiscation of the seized goods valued at Rs. 43,120/- under Rule 173-Q of ht Central Excise Rules, 1944 but order them to be released on payment of Rs.12,000/- as redemption fine. I also confirm the demand of Rs. 60,18,712/- under Rule 9(2) read with Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and impose a penalty of Rs. 60,18,712/- under Section 11-AC of the Act ibid.,I also impose a penalty of Rs.25,000/- on the party under Rule 173-Q for contravening the provisions of Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The party is also liable to pay interest on the amount of central excise duty from the day it became due, under the provisions of Section 11-AB of the Central Excise Act, 1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (O M) 6 subsequent years. The Company filed an appeal before the Commissioner Excise against the demand raised by the Deputy Commissioner Excise. The Commissioner Excise vide order dated 18.5.2005 (Annexure P8) opined that the Excise Duty was not liable to be paid by the petitioners. The said order has been placed on record as Annexure P8 and the operative portion of the said order reads as under:- I have considered the matter. Since the appeal is quite old and the appellant company has already been ordered to be wound up. I take up the appeal for final disposal on merits as submitted by the Advocate for the appellant vide his letter dated 19.8.2004. The issue regarding classification of cotton knitted fabrics containing elastomeric yarn .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... costs. The company had been ordered to be wound up vide order dated 12.7.2001 in CP No.102 of 2001 and it has been observed as under:- In view of the fact that the company in question and its assets/properties have already been sold and there is nothing which can be recovered by the revenue, we put an end to this litigation leaving the question of law open. Thus, with a view to put an end to litigation, order (Annexure P8) was not set aside by the Apex Court. Thus, in the present case, the assessment order which formed the basis of the registration of the complaint against the petitioners has been set aside in appeal vide order dated 18.5.2005 (Annexure P8). In these circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against the pet .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates