2017 (9) TMI 620

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h Kumar, Adv., Mr. Ritesh Kumar Adv. And Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR For the Respondent : Mr. K. R. Sasiprabhu, AOR JUDGMENT ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the Order dated 17th October, 2015 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No.192 of 2014. Thereby, the High Court set aside the order of the trial court dated 22nd....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... follows : "A charge is framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 9 of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 read with violation of Rule 52(A), 56(A), 173(G), 9(2) of Central Excise Rules and Rule 173(Q) read with Section 11(A) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944." 3. The respondent moved the High Court by way of a revision petition. The High Court has allowed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pearing for the appellant submitted that the view taken by the High Court is erroneous. The charge against the respondent was of evasion of excise duty under Section 9(1)(b) which remains unamended. The evasion was on account of the respondent having taken credit without following the procedure under Rule 56A. By omission of the said Rule, the charge did not suffer from any legal infirmity. Altern....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bmitted that penalty for wrongly taking credit was upheld by the Tribunal in Reliance Industries Ltd. versus CCE 1995 (75) ELT 77, which has attained finality. 5. Opposing the above submissions, learned senior counsel for the respondent submitted that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act did not apply omission and applied only to repeal. It did not apply to a rule and applied only to an Act or ....