2007 (12) TMI 462 - HC - Central Excise

Anticipatory bail granted in Central Excise Act case without direct involvement

Naveen Kurele Versus Directorate General Of Central Excise Intelligence

The court granted anticipatory bail to a petitioner in a case involving an alleged violation of Section 9 (A) (A) of the Central Excise Act. The ... - Issues:Anticipatory bail application for alleged violation of Section 9 (A) (A) of the Central Excise Act; Responsibility of an individual for evasion of duty by a company; Interpretation of provisions of Section 9 and Section 9 (A) (A); Necessity of custodial interrogation for reaching the truth; Applicability of Section 9 to individuals involved in company affairs; Consideration of documentary evidence over oral statements; Grant of anticipatory bail based on lack of evidence of individual's involvement.Analysis:The judgment revolves around an anticipatory bail application concerning the alleged violation of Section 9 (A) (A) of the Central Excise Act by a petitioner linked to a company accused of evading excise duty. The petitioner, not a director or employee of the company in question, argued against personal liability under Section 9. The Additional Solicitor General contended that the petitioner, though not a director, was responsible for the company's affairs and liable under the wider scope of Section 9. Reference was made to legal provisions and authorities to support both arguments, emphasizing the petitioner's role in managing the company's conduct.The court considered the petitioner's lack of directorship or direct involvement in the company's operations, relying on documentary evidence over oral statements implicating the petitioner. Noting the absence of proof linking the petitioner to the company's conduct or directorship, the court highlighted a notice addressing the petitioner in a different company's context, indicating no direct responsibility. Previous cases involving co-accused who resigned as directors before the alleged evasion were distinguished from the petitioner's situation, reinforcing the lack of evidence against the petitioner.Given the absence of concrete evidence implicating the petitioner in the evasion of duty and his non-director status, the court granted anticipatory bail. The bail conditions required a personal bond and surety, with a mandate for the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation when required. The judgment emphasized the lack of evidence linking the petitioner to the company's affairs, leading to the grant of anticipatory bail based on the principle of parity and the petitioner's non-director status.