https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203663 Criminal prosecution for alleged central excise evasion was not quashed merely because an earlier writ petition had set aside the CESTAT order on related-person findings. The Court noted that the complaint rested on allegations of suppression of facts, related-person pricing and non-payment of duty under the Central Excise Act and Rules. It held that setting aside the CESTAT order did not amount to an acquittal or a finding in favour of the petitioners, so issue estoppel did not apply. The Court also accepted that adjudication and criminal prosecution operate in different fields, and the prosecution could proceed independently. en-us Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Aug 2013 12:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203663 Criminal prosecution for alleged central excise evasion was not quashed merely because an earlier writ petition had set aside the CESTAT order on related-person findings. The Court noted that the complaint rested on allegations of suppression of facts, related-person pricing and non-payment of duty under the Central Excise Act and Rules. It held that setting aside the CESTAT order did not amount to an acquittal or a finding in favour of the petitioners, so issue estoppel did not apply. The Court also accepted that adjudication and criminal prosecution operate in different fields, and the prosecution could proceed independently. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203663