Excise prosecution may continue despite pending appeal where criminal allegations of evasion and false records stand independently.

Pendency of an excise appeal against the adjudication order does not by itself justify quashing or staying a criminal prosecution under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The complaint was based on independent allegations of evasion through misdeclaration of goods, breach of excise rules and improper maintenance of statutory records, and not merely on the duty dispute decided in adjudication. Because the criminal case rested on distinct factual allegations, the appellate tribunal's eventual decision on duty liability would not necessarily control or defeat the prosecution. The request to quash or stay the criminal proceedings was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal prosecution under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 should be quashed or stayed merely because an appeal against the excise adjudication order was pending before the appellate tribunal.

Analysis: The complaint alleged evasion of excise duty by misdeclaring the goods and referred to contravention of the excise rules and liability for punishment under Section 9(1)(ii) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The adjudication order and the appeal concerned duty liability, while the criminal case was founded on independent allegations of evasion and improper maintenance of statutory records. The pendency of the appeal, therefore, did not control the criminal proceedings, and the tribunal's eventual decision would not necessarily affect the prosecution.

Conclusion: The request to quash or stay the criminal proceedings was rejected.

---