Independent criminal prosecution under the Central Excise Act continues despite pending tribunal appeals where prima facie offence is disclosed.

Pendency of appeals before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal did not bar prosecution under Section 9 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, because departmental proceedings and criminal prosecution operate independently. The High Court reiterated that interference under Section 482 CrPC is limited and that criminal proceedings may be quashed only where no offence is disclosed or the process is an abuse of court process. As the complaint alleged fraudulent availment of Cenvat credit on fabricated documents without actual receipt of inputs, the material disclosed prima facie ingredients of the offence. Quashing was therefore declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether pendency of appeals before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal barred prosecution for the offence under Section 9 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and justified quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The complaint disclosed allegations that the accused fraudulently availed Cenvat credit on the strength of fabricated documents without actual receipt of inputs. The Court held that the scope of interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is limited and that criminal proceedings can be quashed only where no offence is disclosed or the proceedings are otherwise an abuse of process. It further held that proceedings under the Central Excise Act and criminal prosecution are independent, and mere pendency of appeals against the departmental order does not bar prosecution. Since the complaint and accompanying material disclosed prima facie ingredients of the offence under Section 9 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the prosecution could not be quashed on the ground urged.

Conclusion: The pendency of the appeals before the appellate tribunal did not bar the criminal prosecution, and the request to quash the proceedings was rejected.

---