Independent criminal prosecution under Central Excise law can continue despite remand of duty quantification in adjudication.

Criminal complaints under Central Excise law are not liable to be quashed merely because the adjudication order has been remanded for re-quantification of duty. Where the demand was not set aside in toto and the complaint was supported by allegations that goods were found unrecorded or misdescribed in the factory, adjudication and criminal prosecution could proceed independently. The finding in adjudication was not binding on the criminal court, and no exceptional ground was shown for interference at the stage of charge. The petition seeking quashing of the complaint, charge and connected proceedings was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaint and consequential proceedings under the Central Excise law could be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 merely because the adjudication order had been remanded for re-quantification of duty by the appellate tribunal.

Analysis: The Tribunal had not set aside the demand in toto but had only remanded the matter for re-quantification on the basis of actual manufacture and clearance. The complaint was founded on the allegation that chenille yarn was found in the factory without proper record and was wrongly shown as cotton yarn. The Court noted that adjudication and criminal prosecution are independent and may proceed simultaneously, and that the finding in adjudication is not binding on the criminal court. Since the demand had not disappeared and the complaint was supported by material on record, no exceptional ground was made out for quashing the proceedings at the stage of charge.

Conclusion: The petition for quashing of the complaint, charge and connected proceedings was rejected.

---