2022 (11) TMI 436

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... conviction and the sentence passed by the Special Judge for Economic Offences at Hyderabad in C.C.No.6 of 2000 dt.27.11.2008, convicting the accused under Sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(bb) read with Section 9-AA of Central Excise Act. 2. Heard both sides and perused the record. 3. The appellant-Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad filed a complaint against the respondents alleging violation of Sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(bb) read with Section 9-AA of Central Excise Act. 4. The case of the appellant/complainant is that the 1st respondent Company are manufacturers of polyester textured yarn and twisted yarn and fall within the ambit of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It was found by the complainant that the respondents ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in evasion of Central Excise Duty as stated above which are punishable under the provisions of Section Sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(bb) read with Section 9-AA of Central Excise Act and also violation of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 7. The learned Special Judge for Economic Offences by Judgment dated 27.11.2008 in C.C.No.6 of 2000 found both the respondents guilty of the offences and convicted them. However, on appeal by the respondents, the learned Sessions Judge found that the respondents were guilty for the offences alleged, however, it was not open for the complainant to launch prosecution proceedings or to continue the prosecution proceedings against the respondents, having regard to Ex.D8 which is appeal order dt.28.02.2006 and also in vi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellate Tribunal), BED payable by Accused No.1 comes to Rs.17,74,021/- and AED payable by A1 comes to Rs.1,98,848/-, and the total being Rs.19,72,869/- which amount is below the monetary limit for launching prosecution as per Ex.D6. 10. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant/complainant Sri A.Rajashekar Reddy, argued that the findings of the trial court punishing the accused for the offences alleged are correct and the Appellate Sessions Court has misinterpreted the circulars and has come to an erroneous conclusion that the duty imposed on accused is less than Rs.25 lakhs. In the CESTAT order dt.28.06.2006 which is Ex.D8, the Special Counsel submits that the said Tribunal has not reduced the payment of Rs. 1.16 ....