Tariff classification mismatch defeated the excise charge, and the acquittal was left undisturbed.

Where the prosecution's own evidence showed that the tariff entry alleged in the charge was inapplicable to the manufactured electric wiper motors, the foundation of the excise complaint failed. The court held that the proper classification pointed to a different entry, so the offence was not proved on the charge as framed. In those circumstances, the trial court's acquittal was justified and there was no basis to interfere with it in the connected matters. The appeals therefore failed and the respondents' acquittal remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution established that the manufactured electric wiper motors fell within the tariff entry alleged in the charge and whether the acquittal recorded by the trial court was liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The prosecution was founded on a charge tied to Entry 34A of the First Schedule, but the evidence and admission of the initiating witness indicated that Entry 30 was the proper classification. Since the prosecution case itself showed that the charged entry was not attracted, the foundation of the complaint failed. On that basis, the trial court's finding that the offence was not proved was justified, and no separate ground remained to disturb the acquittal in the connected matters.

Conclusion: The charge was not proved and the acquittal was correctly sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed and the respondents' acquittal remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the prosecution's own evidence shows that the tariff entry alleged in the charge is inapplicable, the criminal charge under the excise law fails and an acquittal based on that infirmity cannot be interfered with.

---