Enhanced punishment under central excise law requires a previous conviction; conviction and sentence were set aside, with retrial ordered.

Section 9(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was held inapplicable because enhanced punishment under that provision applies only where there is a previous conviction, and the record showed none. On that basis, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court could not be sustained. The limitation issue was not decided, as the matter was remanded for retrial. The result was that the conviction and sentence were set aside and the case sent back to the trial court for retrial according to law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction and sentence under Section 9(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 could be sustained and whether the matter required retrial.

Analysis: Section 9(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 provides enhanced punishment only in cases of previous conviction. The record did not show any previous conviction of the accused, and the provision was therefore inapplicable to the case. In these circumstances, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court could not be sustained. The question of limitation was not decided, as the matter had to be sent back for retrial.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial court for retrial according to law.

---