https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48259 A private excise complaint was upheld because the adjudication order still recorded that the company was the manufacturer, and the materials disclosed alleged manufacture at another premises, removal of excisable goods, suppression of facts, and evasion of duty. The dropping of duty recovery and penalties on limitation did not negate the alleged offence, so a prima facie case for prosecution remained. A departmental circular fixing a monetary threshold for launching prosecution was treated as an administrative instruction that could not restrict a criminal court's power to take cognizance of statutory offences. The request to quash the proceedings therefore failed. en-us Wed, 14 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Dec 2014 12:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48259 A private excise complaint was upheld because the adjudication order still recorded that the company was the manufacturer, and the materials disclosed alleged manufacture at another premises, removal of excisable goods, suppression of facts, and evasion of duty. The dropping of duty recovery and penalties on limitation did not negate the alleged offence, so a prima facie case for prosecution remained. A departmental circular fixing a monetary threshold for launching prosecution was treated as an administrative instruction that could not restrict a criminal court's power to take cognizance of statutory offences. The request to quash the proceedings therefore failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 14 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48259