2006 (2) TMI 64 - HC - Central Excise

Denial of Anticipatory Bail in Excise Duty Evasion Case

The court denied anticipatory bail to the applicant in a case involving allegations of evasion of excise duty and clandestine removal of goods. The court ... Anticipatory bail –Allegation of bribe on officers not proved so investigation against assessee can not be said with mala fide intention – Required particulars not furnished, so custodial interrogation is justified – Permission granted for bail after interrogation and paying Rs 25000 with sureties Issues:1. Application for anticipatory bail due to apprehension of arrest by Commissioner of Central Excise.2. Allegations of evasion of excise duty and clandestine removal of goods against the applicant.3. Demand for custodial interrogation by Respondent No. 2.4. Dispute over cooperation with investigating officers and reconstruction of damaged files.5. Grant of anticipatory bail and conditions imposed by the court.6. Request for medical facilities for the applicant.Analysis:1. The applicant sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest by the Commissioner of Central Excise in connection with alleged evasion of excise duty and clandestine removal of goods from his firm. He claimed to be a social worker against corruption and bribery, emphasizing his organization's role in canceling a levy on the textile industry.2. The Union of India opposed the bail application, citing substantial evidence of evasion amounting to crores. The Commissioner sanctioned custodial interrogation due to the gravity of the offense, dismissing the applicant's claims of false allegations and lack of cooperation during investigations.3. The applicant's counsel argued against the need for custodial interrogation, attributing damaged files to a flood in 2005 and requesting access to reconstruct them. However, the court found the reasons for delay in presenting this information questionable.4. After hearing both parties, the court denied anticipatory bail, noting the seriousness of the evasion allegations and the lack of concrete evidence supporting the applicant's complaints against excise department officers. The court highlighted the necessity of custodial interrogation due to the voluminous seized documents.5. The court emphasized the legality of the investigation under the Central Excises and Salt Act, allowing for prosecution and arrest upon satisfaction of the competent authority. It directed the applicant to undergo a four-day interrogation period and imposed bail conditions for his release.6. Additionally, the court granted the applicant medical facilities considering his health condition, allowing him to take prescribed medicines and receive home-cooked food during the interrogation period.