2022 (2) TMI 557

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....entral Excise Act, 1944. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant papers on record. 3. The present petitioners have been subjected to a criminal proceeding vide Complaint Case bearing No.2(C) C.C. No.57 of 2003 filed by the present opposite party for commission of offence under Sections 9(1)(b), 9(1)(bb), 9(1)(bbb), 9(1)(d) and 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The crux of the complaint is that the accused-petitioners indulged in suppression of manufacture of Vanaspati and clandestine removal thereof in the guise of various refined oil products in contravention of different rules of Central Excise Rules, 1944 with intent to evade payment of Central Excise duty. It is further averred in the complaint tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....de the matter afresh in the light of our observations and rule of rationale." In view of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 23.12.1999 which laid the substantial basis for the complaint against the petitioners, has become non-existent. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since both the adjudication proceeding and criminal prosecutions involve the selfsame set of facts or allegations, continuance of the proceeding of the complaint case would be an abuse of the process of the Court in the event of exoneration of the petitioners from the allegations in the adjudication proceeding. His further contention is that continuance of the criminal proceeding during pen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....roceeding is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution; (iii) Adjudication proceeding and criminal proceeding are independent in nature to each other; (iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceeding is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution; (v) Adjudication proceeding by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (vi) The finding in the adjudication proceeding in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration in adjudication proc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rifying the position, the majority in Radheshyam Kejriwal case observed that the yardstick would be to judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for the prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court. On the basis of the aforesaid principles, the majority proceeded to analyse the factual matrix and analysed the finding recorded by the adjudicating authority and opined when there is a finding by the Enforcement Directorate in ....