9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD. [ 1962 (10) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] - As to the interpretation of the said provision with the guidelines as prescribed by the Hon'ble Apex Court can be gone into only at the time of trial and hence, it is always open to the revision petitioners/accused to confront and challenge the department witness during the cross-examination. The trial Court has rightly passed an order dismissing the discharge petition filed by the petitioners and the same does not suffer from any perversity in finding and hence, the point is that the revision petitioners are tax evaders or not depends upon the fact that they are the manufacturer or fabricator and hence, the factual position has to be determined by the accused dur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accused do not come under the purview of Section 2(f) of the Central Exercise Act, 1944. The definition of Manufacturer as contained in Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is not specified in relation to the goods specified in third Schedule involving packing and re-packing etc., and hence, the case of the revision petitioners/Accused is that they do not fall under the category 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed wherein, the nature of the activity carried on by the revision petitioners, as per the department, has been enumerated. In support of the complainant, before the trial Court, P.W.1 was examined and documents Exs.P.1 to P.12 were marked. Exs.P.3, P.4 and P.5 series are Labour Bill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the guidelines as prescribed by the Hon'ble Apex Court can be gone into only at the time of trial and hence, it is always open to the revision petitioners/accused to confront and challenge the department witness during the cross-examination. 10. It appears from the records that the petition has been filed after chief examination of P.W.1 and marking of the above said documents and therefore, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Egmore, Chennai, has rightly observed that the premature case has to be determined by the prosecution, as to whether the petitioners herein are 'manufacturer' or 'fabricator' and accordingly, dismissed the case for want of material stick proof. 11. Considering the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
