https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333556 Prosecution under the Central Excise Act was held not to require prior sanction on the facts presented, so the objection based on absence of sanction failed. The Karnataka HC also held that the affidavit requirement in Priyanka Srivastava is confined to applications under Section 156(3) after recourse to Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the Code, and does not extend to a complaint under Section 200 concerning non-cognizable excise offences. The challenge to the revisional order therefore failed, and the complaint was permitted to proceed before the Magistrate in accordance with law. en-us Tue, 20 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Apr 2017 12:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333556 Prosecution under the Central Excise Act was held not to require prior sanction on the facts presented, so the objection based on absence of sanction failed. The Karnataka HC also held that the affidavit requirement in Priyanka Srivastava is confined to applications under Section 156(3) after recourse to Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the Code, and does not extend to a complaint under Section 200 concerning non-cognizable excise offences. The challenge to the revisional order therefore failed, and the complaint was permitted to proceed before the Magistrate in accordance with law. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 20 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333556