TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in Central Excise Case, Directs Regular Bail Application</h1> <h3>Nirmal Kumar Agarwal, Kanhiya Kejriwal And S.N. Goswami Versus Union of India</h3> Nirmal Kumar Agarwal, Kanhiya Kejriwal And S.N. Goswami Versus Union of India - TMI Issues:Apprehension of arrest in connection with Central Excise Act and Finance Act violations.Analysis:The case involves three petitioners apprehending arrest in connection with a complaint filed by the Union of India under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the Finance Act, 1994. The complaint alleges that the petitioners, associated with a company engaged in manufacturing iron and steel products, availed irregular CENVAT Credit causing a significant loss to the government revenue. The petitioners are accused of fabricating documents to claim this irregular credit. The complaint further states that the company's actions led to a loss of approximately Rs. 2,06,00,000. The petitioners argue that the appeals against the previous order are pending, and the company has already reversed the CENVAT Credit, eliminating any current evasion. They rely on legal precedents to support their case.The judgment delves into the definition of non-cognizable offenses and the authority of police officers to arrest without a warrant. It discusses the provisions of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing that the main objective of the Act is the recovery of excise duties rather than punishment for violations. The judgment highlights the introduction of Section 9A, indicating that offenses under the 1944 Act should be non-cognizable and bailable. It differentiates offenses under the Central Excise Act from those under the Indian Penal Code, noting that the former are bailable. The judgment also mentions the provision for compounding offenses under Chapter II of the Act.In response to the petitioners' plea for anticipatory bail, the Central Excise counsel opposes, stating that while the company does not owe anything towards the demand, interests, and penalties are still pending. The counsel argues that the anticipatory bail application is not maintainable as the offenses are bailable in nature, citing a relevant judgment. The court disposes of the anticipatory bail application, directing the petitioners to appear before the lower court within six weeks to file a regular bail application. The lower court is instructed to consider the bail application in light of the Supreme Court's decision that the offenses are bailable.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
