https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418306 Criminal prosecution under the Central Excise Act, 1944 was challenged because it rested on the same allegations and materials as the departmental adjudication concerning alleged suppression of manufacture and clandestine removal. The adjudicatory order supporting the complaint had already been set aside and remanded, removing the original foundation for prosecution. While adjudication and prosecution may proceed simultaneously, continuation of a criminal case on identical facts, where exoneration in adjudication is on merits, may amount to abuse of process. On that basis, the criminal proceeding was directed to remain in abeyance until disposal of the departmental adjudication. en-us Thu, 03 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Feb 2022 20:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418306 Criminal prosecution under the Central Excise Act, 1944 was challenged because it rested on the same allegations and materials as the departmental adjudication concerning alleged suppression of manufacture and clandestine removal. The adjudicatory order supporting the complaint had already been set aside and remanded, removing the original foundation for prosecution. While adjudication and prosecution may proceed simultaneously, continuation of a criminal case on identical facts, where exoneration in adjudication is on merits, may amount to abuse of process. On that basis, the criminal proceeding was directed to remain in abeyance until disposal of the departmental adjudication. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 03 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418306