9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 8 directors. It was inter alia alleged in the complaint that :- (i) M/s. Metal Forgings (Pvt.) Ltd. is a company engaged in the manufacture of steel ingots. (ii) On 24-7-87, the Officers of the Central Excise Collectorate visited the factory of the company M/s. Metal Forgings (Pvt.) Ltd. situated at B-1, Maya Puri Industrial Area, New Delhi. At the time of the visit, Sh. R.K. Shrivastav, a director of the company was present in the said premises. (iii) Upon search of the said premises, incrimating documents were found which showed that the company was engaged in the large scale production of steel ingots but was accounting for only a fraction of total quantity produced and that the goods which were accounted for were cleared without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he accused company. 7. The accused company challenged the said adjudication order by filing an appeal before the CEGAT. After duly considering the evidence produced, vide order dated 24-8-94 the CEGAT partly allowed the appeal. In appeal CEGAT confirmed the demand of duty only with regard to 738.859 MT of MS ingots and also reduced personal penalty to Rs. 25,000/-. 8. Against the order dated 24-8-94 passed by the CEGAT in appeal, the accused company filed a rectification application before the CEGAT. Vide order dated 19-9-95, CEGAT set aside its earlier order dated 24-8-94 and exonerated the accused company. The findings of the CEGAT in so far they are relevant for consideration in the present case are extracted below :- "In the light of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he finding of the Tribunal........" 11. Feeling aggrieved by the afore-noted order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the accused company, its managing director and 2 directors who were impleaded as accused nos. 2, 5 and 6 respectively in the complaint have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the complaint and proceedings emanating out of the said complaint. 12. In support of the petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the reasons given by the ACMM that in all cases irrespective of exoneration in adjudication proceedings, the criminal proceedings would continue is not correct. That the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Neelakantha's c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be quashed. 15. I need not deal with the rival judgments cited for the reason taking note of the various judgments on the issue including the ones noted above and especially the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Standard Chartered Bank's case (supra) [2005 (197) E.L.T. 18 (S.C.)], A.K. Sikri, J. of this court in Sunil Gupta's case (supra) has held as under :- "25…….In fact, various cases of the Supreme Court, note whereof is taken above, deal with different situations. The principles which can be culled out from the aforesaid judgments, when all these judgments are read out harmoniously, would be the following : 1. On the same violation alleged against a person, if adjudication proceedings as well as criminal proceedings are permiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al proceedings. If, on the other hand, the exoneration in the adjudication proceedings is on merits and it is found that allegations are not substantiated at all and the concerned person(s) is/are innocent, and the criminal prosecution is also on the same set of facts and circumstances, the criminal prosecution cannot be allowed to continue. The reason is obvious criminal complaint is filed by the Departmental authorities alleging violation/contravention of the provisions of the Act on the part of the accused persons. However, if the Departmental authorities themselves, in adjudication proceedings, record a categorical and unambiguous finding that there is no such contravention of the provisions of the Act, it would be unjust for such Depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty was in fact wastage occurring at the stage of production of forgings out of ingots. No fabrication or manipulation was found in the documents of the accused company. Since the Department has not challenged the order dated 19-9-95, the finding arrived at by CEGAT has attained finality. The order of the CEGAT exonerating the accused company is thus clearly on merits. 19. In view of the above discussion, the complaint under Section 9 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 read with Sections 193, 192 and 120-B of the IPC (Annexure G to the petition) and the proceedings emanating out of the said complaint are quashed for the reason the departmental proceedings has resulted in the petitioners being exonerated on merits and the criminal pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
