https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200285 A departmental finding that the fourth accused was not a related person of the first accused did not bar the criminal complaint for excise-related suppression, misdeclaration of price lists and duty evasion. The Court held that, for quashing under Section 482 CrPC, the complaint must be examined on its face to see whether it discloses the alleged offences, and findings in departmental proceedings do not bind the criminal court or operate as acquittal or estoppel. On that basis, the prior appellate departmental order was not treated as a bar, and the prosecution was allowed to proceed. en-us Fri, 06 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Mar 2018 17:07:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200285 A departmental finding that the fourth accused was not a related person of the first accused did not bar the criminal complaint for excise-related suppression, misdeclaration of price lists and duty evasion. The Court held that, for quashing under Section 482 CrPC, the complaint must be examined on its face to see whether it discloses the alleged offences, and findings in departmental proceedings do not bind the criminal court or operate as acquittal or estoppel. On that basis, the prior appellate departmental order was not treated as a bar, and the prosecution was allowed to proceed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 06 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200285