TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 405
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ersons in the final report presented under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. is as under : The Accused no.1 was at the relevant time working as Superintendent of Central Excise, Vasco Range, Goa and Accused no.2 was working as Inspector of Central Excise, Vasco Range, under the Accused no.1. The Accused no. 3 is the proprietor of M/s. Globle Fashion, the Accused no.4 is the proprietor of M/s. Welspin & Branded Impex, the Accused no.5 is the Manager of Welspin and Branded Impex and Accused no.6, the proprietor of M/s. K. D. Impex. 3. The Accused nos. 4 and 5 are having factory at Sancoale Industrial Estate, Goa and are claimed to be manufacturers of the garments whereas the Accused no.3 is having factory at plot no. 50, Sancoale Industrial Estate, Goa, and is involved in the manufacture and export of garments. 4. The Accused no.3 obtained nine DEPB (Duty Entitlement Pass Book) licenses against eight exports from the office of Directorate General of Foreign Trade, Goa. Eight exports were carried out to the firms in Zambia and Dubai. 5. The ninth consignment meant for export packed in a container was intercepted and examined by Superintendent of Customs, Hyderabad on 27th March, 2004. In th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. The Tribunal set aside the penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act against the Accused nos. 1 and 2. 9. Forming said to be the basis, the Respondent nos.1 and 2 appears to have invoked the provisions for discharge vide exhibit B-309, which application came to be allowed vide order impugned dated 28.03.2014. As such, this revision. 10. The learned Senior Counsel, Mr. S. R. Rivankar, appearing for the applicant while inviting the attention of this Court to the observations made in the impugned order, would urge that the Accused nos.1 and 2 have abused their official position being public servant by conniving with Accused nos. 3 to 6 thereby permitting the export by overlooking the quality of goods during physical verification and by giving false certification. According to him, Accused nos. 3 and 4 have not furnished all the declarations, the one required to be made with jurisdictional Assistant/Deputy Commissioner containing details of finished goods, rate of duty leviable, manufacturing formulae with details of proportion of each raw material used, quantity, the input and output, ARE-2 Forms, still rebat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....West Bengal & anr. reported in (2011) 3 SCC 581 affirmed in the subsequent judgments of Apex Court in the matter of Videocon Industries Limited & anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2016) 12 SCC 315 and in the matter of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI & anr. decided on 08.09.2020 in Criminal Appeal no.575/2020, has concurred that in the adjudication proceedings, the material relied on is similar to that of in the proceedings for prosecution and in the adjudication proceedings, there is exoneration of the concerned persons. Then, in such an eventuality, the continuation of the prosecution is an abuse of the process of the Court. As such, the submissions are that the revision is without any merit and is liable to be rejected. 15. I have perused the pleadings in the petition wherein the challenge raised by the Petitioner is only to the extent of the discharge of the Accused nos.1 and 2 who are public servants vide order dated 28.03.2014 passed by Special Judge, CBI Court, Goa at Mapusa in Special Case No. 29/2013/D. 16. The Respondents-Accused nos.1 and 2 are charge-sheeted for an offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Globe Fashion (Exim) India Goa. The Commissioner has absolved them from this charge by holding that the Revenue has not proved that there are some extraneous consideration for their action. He has clearly noted that there is dereliction of duty. For the purpose of imposing penalty under Section 114(i), the revenue has to prove that the appellants have abetted in the offence or have colluded with the exporters and CHA. This charge has not been made in the show cause notice. The charge is not explicit and the only ground made out is that the appellants ought to have examined the containers fully and discovered discrepancies in the documents vis-a-vis the contents in the containers. Ld. Commissioner has clearly held that there is only dereliction of duty. In the circumstances, the charge of the revenue under Section 114 and consequence imposition of the penalties are required to be set aside. Further more on this very issue the citations relied by the appellants clearly apply to the facts of the case. In the case of CC New Delhi vs Hargovind Export (2003 (158) ELT 496), the Tribunal has clearly held that penalty cannot be imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act on the mere cha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an illegal manner. Consequently, the Accused nos. 1 and 2 were exonerated on the same set of allegations as has been made in the present case in the adjudication proceedings that too by an order of Appellate Tribunal. In that view of the matter, the determination in the adjudication proceedings are very much relevant and germane in the matter of prosecution of the Accused nos.1 and 2 on the same set of material in the criminal trial. What can be noticed from the observations made by the Commissioner and thereafter the Appellate Tribunal is the Accused nos. 1 and 2 were exonerated in the adjudication proceedings on merits as the allegations against them of dereliction of duty or acting in an illegal manner were not established. The observations of the Apex Court in the judgment of Videocon Industries Limited (supra) particularly para 17, are worth referring to : "17. Clarifying the position, the majority observed that the yardstick would be to judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is found on merit....