TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 440
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plaint in E.O.C.C.No.146 of 2006 on the file of the above said Court for prosecuting the petitioners herein for the commission of the offences under Sections 9(1)(b)(i), 9(1)(bb)(i), 9(1)(bbb)9(i) and 9(1)(d)(i) r/w Section 9AA of Central Excise Act, 1944, as amended. As per the averments made in the complaint, the Accused No.1 namely Tmt.Rukshana Deshpande is the Proprietrix of M/s.Dagger Die Cutting and the Accused No.2 namely Mr.Nilanjan Deshpande - the husband of the first accused is the Chief Executive Officer of the above said concern and he is incharge for the day-to-day affairs of the concern. The above said concern is manufacturing cutting knives falling under Chapter Heading 8208.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 and M/s.Dagger International is the Proprietary concern of the second accused and it is the sole selling agents of excisable goods manufactured by M/s.Dagger Die Cutting. It is further averred in the complaint that as per the intelligence gathered by the Preventive Officers of the respondent, the transactions between M/s.Dagger Die Cutting (in short "DDC") and M/s.Dagger International (in short "DI") are related according to Section 7 of the Companies Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isions of Rule 9(1), 52A, 53, 173B, 173C, 173F, 173G and 174 read with Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules 1944 since they - (i) had not applied for and obtained a Central Excise Registration Certificate for the manufacture and clearance of excisable goods, immediately after crossing the prescribed exemption limits under Notification No.1/93-CE dated 28.02.93 as amended during the above period, (ii) had failed to issue Central Excise Invoices for the clearances of excisable goods manufactured, (iii) had failed to account for the production and clearance of excisable goods in the Statutory Central Excise records, (iv) had failed to declare the appropriate classification and value of the excisable goods; (v) had cleared excisable goods without determining the appropriate excise duty leviable thereon and without payment of excise duty. The sum and substance of the allegations levelled in the complaint are that Accused No.1 and 2 in collusion and with common intention,evaded payment of Central Excise Duty. 4. Mr.Sivam Sivanantha Raj, learned counsel appearing for petitioners has submitted that as regards adjudicatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the petitioner in support of his statement has placed reliance upon the following decisions :- [a] 1982 (2) SCC 543 [Uttam Chand v. I.T.O.] [b] 1995 Supp (2) SCC 724 [G.L.Didwania and another v. Income Tax Officer] [c] 2002 (130) E.L.T. 498 (Mad.) [Swathy Chemicals Ltd. V. Union of India] [SB] 9. Per contra, Mr.S.M.Deenadayalan, learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that the steps are being taken to challenge the order dated 30.04.2010 made in W.P.No.25580 of 2003. It is also submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that a cursory perusal of the averments made in the complaint would prima facie disclose that ingredients of the offences have been met out against the accused and that the points urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners can be trashed out or adjudicated only during the course of trial. It is the further submission of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that writ petition challenging the order passed by the CESTAT, is not at all maintainable as the remedy available to the petitioners herein to prefer an appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 10. The learned Special Public Prosecutor ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot genuine and a false return was filed. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the firm in question is a genuine one. Based on such findings, the accused therein sought for quashment of the criminal proceedings and it was negatived and challenging the legality of the same, an appeal was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on the above cited decision held that in view of the finding recorded by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, criminal proceedings could not be continued and therefore allowed the appeal and quashed the proceedings. 15. In 1995 Supp (2) SCC 724 [G.L.Didwania and another v. Income Tax Officer], prosecution was launched under Income Tax Act against the assessee on the ground that he had intentionally concealed his income derived from a particular company which belonged to him. The assessee filed an appeal challenging the order of assessment and the Appellate Tribunal has allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of assessment holding that there was no material available to hold that a particular company belong to assessee. The appellant placed reliance upon the said decision and filed an application before th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of goods and conveyances and also imposition of penalty not exceeding one thousand rupees for contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or abetment of any such contravention and for failure to comply with any provisions of the Act with which it was one's duty to comply where no express penalty is elsewhere provided for such contravention or failure. It may also be possible that an act or event which entails punishment under Chapter XVI may by itself or with other ingredients also amount to a contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or abetment of any such contravention. Where the same act or event constitutes an offence under Chapter XVI and at the same time constitutes a contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or failure to perform any duty prescribed under the Act, there will be possibility of prosecution and punishment under Chapter XVI of the Act and any other provision of law and at the same time confiscation and penalty under Chapter Xvi of the Act." 20. In 2006 (2) SCC (Cri) 221 [Standard Chartered Bank V. Directorate of Enforcement], the issue pertains to adjudication proceedings under Section 51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty. 23. It is the further submission of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the criminal prosecution and adjudication proceedings act on different field and therefore quashment of the CESTAT order will have no baring on the criminal proceedings. 24. The issue arise for consideration is whether the criminal prosecution in E.O.C.C.No.144 of 2006 pending on the file of the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences, Egmore, Chennai can continue inspite of the fact that the order of CESTAT was quashed by this Court in W.P.No.25580 of 2003 ? 25. No doubt the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners lay down the preposition that once the tribunal had decided the case in favour of the assessee, criminal prosecution cannot continue and a Single Bench of this court in the decision reported in 2002 (130) E.L.T. 498 (Mad.) by following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, has laid down the same preposition. However taking into consideration the submission made by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that steps are being taken to challenge the order dated 30.04.2010 made in W.P.No.25580 of 2003 are on the way in....