Central Excise remand requires authorised forwarding; custody order fails if the remanding officer lacks statutory power.

Under the Central Excise Act, remand to judicial custody depends on compliance with the forwarding procedure: an arrested person must be produced before an officer empowered to send the person to a Magistrate, and remand obtained without that authorisation is invalid. On the separate issue of bail status, tentative rather than final quantification of alleged duty evasion did not prevent treatment of the offence as cognizable and non-bailable where the alleged evasion exceeded the statutory threshold. The remand order was therefore quashed and release ordered because the statutory procedure for forwarding and remand was not followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner's remand into judicial custody was valid when the arresting officer was not shown to be empowered to forward the arrested person to a Magistrate under the Central Excise Act. (ii) Whether the offence could be treated as cognizable and non-bailable on the basis of only tentative quantification of alleged excise duty evasion.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner's remand into judicial custody was valid when the arresting officer was not shown to be empowered to forward the arrested person to a Magistrate under the Central Excise Act.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 requires that a person arrested under the Act be forwarded to a Central Excise Officer empowered to send such person to a Magistrate, and that the empowered officer alone may proceed further on the charge. The power to arrest under Section 13 stands on a different footing from the power to forward the arrested person for remand. Since the record did not show that the officer who sought remand was authorised to act under Sections 19 and 21, the remand proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory procedure.

Conclusion: The remand was invalid and the point was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the offence could be treated as cognizable and non-bailable on the basis of only tentative quantification of alleged excise duty evasion.

Analysis: The available material showed only a prima facie or tentative assessment of evasion, but the assessment placed the alleged evasion far above the statutory threshold of one crore rupees. In those circumstances, the absence of final quantification did not alter the character of the offence for the purpose of resisting remand on the plea that it remained bailable and non-cognizable.

Conclusion: The petitioner did not succeed on this ground, which was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The impugned remand order was quashed and the petitioner was directed to be released forthwith because the remand was not in accordance with the statutory procedure governing arrest and forwarding for judicial custody under the Central Excise Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute prescribes that an arrested person must be forwarded only by an officer empowered to do so, remand obtained without such authorisation is vitiated notwithstanding a valid arrest power or a tentative assessment of the alleged offence.

---