TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1784
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner of Central Excise, Annasalai, Nandanam, Chennai had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the present petitioners/accused in E.O.C.C. No.1 of 2010 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. The case of the respondent/complainant in nutshell is as follows. On 24.02.1999, the officer attached to the Head Quarters of Preventive Unit, during surveillance, inspected a truck bearing registration No. TN-72-5238 in front of M/s Madras Lamps (P) Ltd., Gummidipoondi, carrying PVC Pipes. On interrogation, it was found that the driver of the vehicle carried 1000 PVC Pipes loaded at M/s Mathura Polymers (P) Ltd., Gummidipoondi (MPPL) in his truck with an instruction to unloa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e admitted of having manufactured goods namely Rigid PVC pipes without payment of duty and without accounting for the same in the Central Excise Records. The records seized from the premises of the first accused also showed that the TWAD Board is their major customer and have placed orders during the year 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 and that the first accused have shown fictitious debit entires in the invoices and they have also manufactured and cleared such excisable goods namely PVC pipes, without payment of duty and without following the Central Excise Procedures. 3. The complainant in his complaint has further averred that the first accused have availed modvat credit on the input/raw materials purchased by them and have cleared cert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s under proviso to Section 11 A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rule,1944. Thereafter, a show cause notice No.58/99 dated 3.9.1999 was issued to the accused 1 to 3 with a demand to deposit the sum of Rs. 66,89,021 minus Rs. 5,95,721/- being the duty involved in the clandestine removal of excisable goods under Section 11 A(1) of the Central Excise Act 1944 read with Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The accused received the said notice and sent their reply dated 24.02.2000 and 28.02.2000, denying all the allegations of the respondent/complainant. The specific contention of the respondent/complainant is that the accused have manufactured dutiable excisable goods and removed the same without ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Collector/Principal Commissioner should approve/sanction for launching any prosecution on the basis of the adjudication passed under the Central Excise Act. 5. Mr.T.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the decision in Union of India Vs. Greavs Limited reported in 2002 (139) ELT Page-34 (MAD) and contended that prior approval for launching prosecution under Central Excise Act is a condition precedent and that -since the present complaint is filed without obtaining prior approval from the competent authority, the entire proceedings is liable to be quashed. He drew the attention of this court to para No.36 of the complaint in E.O.C.C.No.1 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore....