9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (10) TMI 728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise Tariff Rules, 1985. On 25.2.1991, the officers of the Central Excise (Preventive) Department inspected the factory premises of the petitioners and found that the provisional SSI Registration Certificate No. 55/55/60-4/STH, dated 8.11.1989 granted to the petitioners had expired on 7.11.1990 but the petitioners had started production/clearance of goods with effect from 9.2.1990 and the total value of the goods manufactured and cleared by them during the financial year 1989-90 and year 1990-91 was ₹ 3,76,761/- and ₹ 19,99,477.10 respectively. According to the respondent, since the petitioner No. 1 was neither in possession of a permanent SSI Registration certificate nor their provisional SSI registration Certificate was extende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioners. 3. After the Appellate Tribunal passed the order allowing the appeal, the petitioners filed a petition before the A.C.M.M. to drop criminal proceedings. The A.C.M.M. by the order dated 1.7.1998 dismissed the said application holding that the prosecution has got a right to lead evidence in support of the complaint and the Court can come to the conclusion whether or not any offence is made out. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner have come up before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously urged that the prosecution of the petitioners on the same set of facts and evidence on the basis of which the departmental adjudication proceedings were initiated and finalised resultin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e show cause notice as well as during the personal hearing, instead he has gone on to confirm the demands, which are totally unsustainable. As the matter has already been adjudicated earlier and the department has dropped the proceedings twice, the question of sustaining this order does not arise. Therefore, the impugned order does not survive and it is set aside. 5. Thus, the whole question is whether the petitioners had evaded Central Excise Duty to the tune of ₹ 10,08,020.50 on the clearance of the goods manufactured by them during the financial years 1989-90 and 1990-91. The Appellate Tribunal has held that the petitioners were eligible for the benefits of SSI as per notification No. 175/86 dated 1.3.1986 as amended, during th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
