https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45711 A prosecution for alleged evasion of excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was held time-barred because it was instituted beyond the six-month limitation period in section 40(2), counted from when the shortage was noticed and the officer had knowledge of the alleged irregularity. The criminal complaint was also premature because the departmental adjudication under Rule 223(A) had not yet determined whether the shortage resulted from clandestine removal or from permissible wastage or other non-culpable causes. The complaint was therefore not maintainable, and the acquittal was upheld. en-us Mon, 05 Apr 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jul 2010 13:33:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45711 A prosecution for alleged evasion of excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was held time-barred because it was instituted beyond the six-month limitation period in section 40(2), counted from when the shortage was noticed and the officer had knowledge of the alleged irregularity. The criminal complaint was also premature because the departmental adjudication under Rule 223(A) had not yet determined whether the shortage resulted from clandestine removal or from permissible wastage or other non-culpable causes. The complaint was therefore not maintainable, and the acquittal was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 05 Apr 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45711