https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190490 Revision by a complainant to seek enhancement of sentence was barred where an appeal lay under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, because Section 401(4) precludes revision by a party who could have appealed. A revisional order passed in breach of that bar was without jurisdiction and unsustainable. On sentence, the magistrate's decision to impose only fine was upheld, the court noting the prolonged prosecution and the absence of specific proof of the duty leviable on the excisable goods, which was relevant to punishment under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The original sentence order therefore remained intact. en-us Thu, 12 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Feb 2017 07:00:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190490 Revision by a complainant to seek enhancement of sentence was barred where an appeal lay under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, because Section 401(4) precludes revision by a party who could have appealed. A revisional order passed in breach of that bar was without jurisdiction and unsustainable. On sentence, the magistrate's decision to impose only fine was upheld, the court noting the prolonged prosecution and the absence of specific proof of the duty leviable on the excisable goods, which was relevant to punishment under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The original sentence order therefore remained intact. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 12 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190490