https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235556 Partners named in a central excise prosecution were not entitled to discharge where the complaint alleged illicit manufacture and removal of biris and evasion of duty in breach of the Central Excise Rules. The Magistrate had already examined the material and rejected the discharge petition, and the prosecution had reached a partly heard stage after four witnesses were examined. On the partnership deed and the record, the High Court found no infirmity requiring interference at that stage and upheld the refusal to discharge, while noting the accused's entitlement to a speedy trial. en-us Wed, 17 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Jul 2013 07:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235556 Partners named in a central excise prosecution were not entitled to discharge where the complaint alleged illicit manufacture and removal of biris and evasion of duty in breach of the Central Excise Rules. The Magistrate had already examined the material and rejected the discharge petition, and the prosecution had reached a partly heard stage after four witnesses were examined. On the partnership deed and the record, the High Court found no infirmity requiring interference at that stage and upheld the refusal to discharge, while noting the accused's entitlement to a speedy trial. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 17 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235556