9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A-1 was a 100% Export Oriented Unit engaged in the manufacture of Sodium Azide. It is registered with the Central Excise and Customs Department vide Registration No. 12/92. It is alleged that A-1 did not have permission to clear their product Sodium Azide into Domestic Tariff Area (DTA). A-1 is represented by its Managing Director, the 2nd petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 5425 of 1999. 4.It is alleged that acting on specific information that certain incriminating documents relating to un-accounted manufacture and unauthorised removal of Sodium Azide without payment of duty into Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) were concealed at various premises, searches were conducted on 23-4-1993 and 24-4-1993 simultaneously at the factory and office premises of A-1 Company and also at the premises of A-5 Company which is represented by A-6, the residential premises of Ex-Manager of A-5, the residential premises of the Managing Director of M/s. Vijay Ganesh Chemicals and Drugs Pvt. Ltd., Bidar and the factory premises of A-5 Company and in the course of search, recoveries of certain documents/records were made. Panchnamas were recorded. Statements of various persons belonging to A-1 and A-5 Compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the Act and the Rules by not obtaining the permission for DTA clearance of Sodium Azide. They have failed to pay the Central Excise duty due on the said clearance. The clearances were not shown in the statutory records as is required under the Rules. It is alleged that A-5 and A-6 have violated the provisions of the Act by receiving the aforesaid non-duty paid Sodium Azide from A-1. The accused were fully aware of the Rules and Regulations. It is under those circumstances, the Complaint has been filed. The Learned Special Judge for Economic Offences had taken the Complaint on file. 9.Learned Counsel for the petitioners brings to the notice of the Court that the Central Board of Excise and Customs which is the highest authority constituted under the provisions of the Act for the purposes of administration took the policy decision deciding that the monetary limit for initiation of prosecution be enhanced from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 25 lakhs so as to ensure better utilization of manpower, time and resources of the Department and accordingly, issued revised circular dated 12-12-1997. 10.In this batch of petitions, Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that in view of the ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ], the same principle is reiterated by the Supreme Court. It is held that the Central Board of Direct Taxes under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act has power, inter alia to tone-down the rigour of the law and ensure a fair enforcement of its provisions, by issuing circulars in exercise of the statutory powers under Section 119 which are binding on the authorities in the administration of the Act. The principle is the same as the one in Ranadey Micronutrients case (supra). 15.The question that falls for consideration in the instant case is not as to whether the 1st respondent is bound by the circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. May be, the 1st respondent is bound by the circulars. But the question that falls for consideration is as contended by the Learned Special Public Prosecutor is as to whether the circular is applicable to the facts on hand? 16.Learned Special Public Prosecutor brings to my notice the circular dated 9-8-1990 under which a decision has been taken to issue guidelines revising the earlier guidelines in the matter of launching of prosecutions under the Act. Guideline 2(iii) which is not altered by the subsequent circular dated 12-12-97 sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 25 lakhs is to be read in the proper context particularly in view of what is stated in the same circular that it is perspective in its operation. I am inclined to agree with the submission made by the Learned Special Public Prosecutor. It is clear that if the evasion of the excise duty is up to Rs. 25 lakhs, the competent authority perhaps may be justified not to launch prosecution provided such evasion of excise duty is for the period subsequent to 12-12-97. In the instant case, the alleged evasion and contravention relates to the period from 7-12-90 to 14-7-1992. The circular dated 12-12-97 is perspective in its operation. It would be applicable in cases where the contravention and evasion of the excise duty is subsequent to 12-12-1997. In respect of the evasions and contraventions prior to 12-12-97, the specified limit of Rs. 25 lakhs would not be applicable. 21.The next question that falls for consideration is whether the Court taking cognizance of the Compliant is bound by such circulars as the one issued by the Board? 22.In Bengal Iron Corporation v. Commercial Tax Officer [1993 (66) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.)], Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy, speaking for the Supreme Court held thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. normally does not interfere and exercise its power to quash the very complaint. Interference by this Court is only in rarest of rare cases. In the normal circumstances, the proceedings must be allowed to go on culminating in the verdict by the competent Court of jurisdiction. This Court interferes only to prevent manifest abuse of judicial process which may result in manifest injustice. 26.The question as to whether there is any contravention at all as alleged by the respondent/Complainant in the Complaint is the subject matter that has to be gone into by the Learned Special Judge during the course of enquiry and trial. No opinion need be expressed by this Court at this stage nor would it be possible for this Court to express any opinion. 27.For all the aforesaid reasons, this batch of criminal petitions shall stand dismissed. The Learned Trial Judge shall proceed with the enquiry and trial in accordance with law un-influenced by any observations, if any, made in this order as they are confined only for the purposes of disposal of these petitions. 28.However, the Learned Special Judge may consider the request of any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
