9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (9) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollows: 3. Accused 1 and 4 are partnership firms. The second accused is the partner of first accused firm. The third accused is the Manager of first accused firm. The third accused is also partner of fourth accused firm. Accused two and three were responsible for conducting the affairs of the first accused firm. The third accused is the partner of fourth accused firm and is responsible for conducting the affairs of fourth accused. Biscuits are subject to levy of Central Excise Duty and were classified under tariff item 1-C of the first schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, prior to 28.2.86 for levy of Excise duty. The first accused manufactured biscuits. It is functioning under self removal procedure under which an assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... des the head office. Both companies have common employees with common vehicles for transport of goods. There was mutuality of business interest between both the companies. The biscuits manufactured by first accused being sold to fourth accused on assessable value approved under proforma I. The fourth accused in turn sold the goods at much higher price. The first accused company deliberately with an intention to evade payment of duty filed price list in proforma part I instead of Part IV. By suppressing the relationship between the companies and by misdeclaring the value and evaded payment of Central Excise Duty to the tune of ₹ 2,27,409.33. Hence they have contravened the provisions of the Act and are liable to be punished under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings are not at all binding on the criminal Court that they are parallel proceedings and so this finding of the Collector relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner would not at all stand in the way of the maintainability of the complaint. He would further contend that on the materials then available as on 28.4.81, the Collector had passed that order and now the investigations which has been set out in the complaint had revealed the factors which lead to a conclusion that fourth accused is a related person and hence the complaint cannot be quashed at the threshold. 6. In the order of the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, dated 28.4.81, he has stated as follows.: In the instant case, the appellants have factory-gate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Bihar v. P.P.Sharma. It is, manifestly clear that proceedings against an accused in the initial stages can be quashed only if on the face of the complaint or the papers accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. In other words, the test is that taking the allegations and the complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is made out then the proceedings can be quashed by exercise of powers under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. In this case, it is not in dispute that allegations in the complaint do make out the offences alleged. But the contention was that because of the finding of the Collector as stated above, this complaint is barred. So the question is whether the finding of the Appellate Colle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
