1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court upholds acquittal citing Central Excise duty exemption post-offenses. Appeal dismissed.</h1> The High Court upheld the first appellate judge's decision to acquit the accused based on their exemption from Central Excise duty under Notification No. ... Prosecution Issues:Challenging judgment of Principal Sessions Judge regarding violation of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.Analysis:1. The complaint was filed against the accused for violating Sections 9(1)(a)(i), 9(1)(b)(i), and 9(1)(b)(b)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The accused were manufacturing steel structural fabrications without obtaining Central Excise License and without paying duty.2. Witnesses and documents were examined in various cases related to the accused's manufacturing activities and evasion of Central Excise duty.3. The evidence presented by the prosecution led to the conviction of the accused by the trial court under various sections of the Act. The accused denied their involvement in the crime during the trial.4. The first appellate judge acquitted the accused based on the argument that they were exempted from Central Excise duty under Notification No. 119/75 issued by the Central Government.5. The Special Public Prosecutor argued that the notification came into force in 1985, and hence, the accused could not claim the benefit. However, as there was no mention of this in the appeal grounds or during the first appeal, the court upheld the appellate judge's decision.6. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the judgment of the appellate judge, as the notification, if applicable, would nullify the charges against the accused. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the appellate judge's decision.7. The court clarified that its judgment would not impact any ongoing departmental proceedings against the accused related to the orders passed by the Collector of Central Excise Department.This detailed analysis covers the legal issues, evidence presented, trial court's decision, appellate judge's ruling, arguments made by the Special Public Prosecutor, and the final judgment of the High Court, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
