TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (10) TMI 664
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filing of this application are as under: In or about 1984, the present petitioner was introduced to one Mr. Shah who claimed that he had a manufacturing unit for manufacturing Video Cassettes at Jamnagar under the name and style of M/s. Chinar Electronics. In course of discussion, the aforesaid Mr. Shah told that he was facing financial difficulties and requested the present petitioner to arrange for some finance in return he also assured that petitioner would receive good returns. The petitioner made enquiries with regard to the promise made by Mr. Shah and he considered it to be profitable. The petitioner, thereafter, agreed to advance the aforesaid loan to Mr. Shah as per the terms and conditions agreed upon by them. 3. On 8th August,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t he was merely a financier and had agreed only to finance Mr. Shah for the purpose of manufacturing of video cassettes which he proposed to buy and sale it in the local market for profits and in no way he was concerned in the importation of the aforesaid goods. 5. The Collector of Customs, however by an order dated 19-08-1986 rejected the aforesaid contention of the petitioner and levied penalty of ₹ 25,000/-upon him under Section 112 of the Customs Act and by the self-same order, the Collector also confiscated the aforesaid goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. 6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order filed an appeal before the Statutory Appellate Authority namely, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from the date of appearance of the accused and failure on the part of the prosecution to complete this evidence, as aforesaid, within the aforesaid required period, the accused petitioner is entitled to be discharged from the concerned case and the criminal prosecution is also liable to be quashed on that ground alone. Hence, this petition. 9. Sri Sekhar Basu, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner in course of his submission has contended that by an order bearing No. 32/86(Prev.) dated 19-08-1986, a penalty of ₹ 25,000/- was levied upon the petitioner under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner appealed against the said order which was, however, allowed by the CEGAT by an order dated 03-08-1993 bearing No. A-4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted and whether the prosecution can be sustained in view of the order passed by the Tribunal. As noted above, the assessing authority held that the appellant-assessee made a false statement in respect of income of M/s. Young India and Transport Company and that finding has been set aside by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. If that is the position then we are unable to see as to how criminal proceedings can be sustained". 12. The next judgment relied upon by Sri Bose is reported in 133 I.T.R. 909 in the case of Uttam Chand and Ors. v. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle, Amritsar. In the said judgment it was held as follows :-- "In view of the finding recorded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that it was clear on the apprai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntendent of Customs (Preventive). In the said judgment it was held by the Single Bench of this Court that when the two principal accused namely Subrata Chowdhury and Arup Ghosh were exonerated of all the charges, there is no reason why the criminal proceeding against the present petitioners, who were earlier exonerated of the charge against them in the confiscation proceeding before the Deputy Commissioner of Customs should be allowed to be continued. 15. With reference to the aforesaid decisions, it has been submitted by Mr. Basu that since the criminal prosecution filed against the petitioner relates to the self-same facts as covered in the proceeding pending before the Preventive Authority of the Customs and for that matter before the C....