TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 336
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ogendra Garg, Joint Development Commissioner, Kandla Special Economic Zone, Kandla (hereinafter referred to as "KASEZ"), and Shri V.N. Jahagirdar, Deputy Commissioner of Customs, KASEZ, between the period from March 2001 to August 2004. It is alleged that the latter officials perverted their official positions and allowed the Appellant-Company to clear its goods into the Indian Market on payment of Countervailing Duty (hereinafter referred to as "CVD") on the invoice value of the concerned goods, rather than the payment of the CVD on the Maximum Retail Price (hereinafter referred to as "MRP") of the said goods, thereby causing a wrongful gain to themselves and a corresponding wrongful loss to the Government exchequer to the tune of INR 8,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Crores only). 3. Before pursuing the aftermath of the allegations by the Respondent-Agency, it is crucial to delve into the backdrop in which the allegations arose against the Appellant-Company. 4. The Appellant-Company claims to be a private limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, which is engaged in manufacturing and exporting of cosmetics and toilet preparations and having one of its units....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner of Customs (Appeals), Kandla by filing of appeals, which resulted in the passing of Orders dated 09.05.2005 and 30.06.2005. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kandla observed that the concerned goods were ought to be assessed under Section 3(2) of the CT Act 1975 as opposed to the proviso to the said provision. Furthermore, declaration of MRP is necessary on packages intended for retail sale and not for bigger packages for wholesale trade. The Revenue Authorities were directed to consider the case of the concerned goods of the Appellant-Company afresh in light of the observations made in the said Orders. 8. In the meanwhile, a clarification was sought from the Office of the Collector of Legal Metrology and Director of Consumer Affairs by the Appellant-Company in the said regard and it was responded vide Letter dated 04.01.2006 wherein, the view taken by the Appellant- Company by placing reliance on Rule 29 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "Packaged Commodities Rules 1977") was affirmed. 9. Placing reliance on the Letter dated 04.01.2006 and other materials on record, the Appellant- Company mov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction under Section 197 of the CrPC 1973, and henceforth, the Appellant- Company cannot be prosecuted alone for the charge under Section 120B of IPC 1860, and it finally put forth that the offences under Section 420 read with Section 120B of IPC 1860 are not made out as against the Appellant. 13. The learned Special Judge, however, disagreed Company and dismissed the said application vide Order dated 19.07.2017. To substantiate its dismissal, the Court with reference to the CE Act 1944, observed that as per Section 4A(1), it transpires that the retail price of the concerned goods is to be declared, which through reliance on Circular dated 01.03.2001 and the concerned provisions of law, is interpreted as declaration of MRP. 14. It is against the said Order dated 19.07.2017 that the Appellant-Company had moved the High Court of Gujarat in CRA No. 783 of 2017 which eventually led to the passing of the Impugned Order dated 15.09.2023. During the pendency of the CRA No. 783 of 2017, the High Court of Gujarat stayed further proceedings before the Special Judge while issuing notice to the Respondent-Agency vide Order dated 18.08.2017. It was brought to the attention of the High Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on parlance, a Challan or a Chargesheet) is submitted as per the compliance of Section 173(2) of CrPC 1973, cognizance for the offence(s) concerned is taken. However, undoubtedly, the Court is not bound by the said report. The cardinal principle that investigation and taking of cognizance operate in parallel channels, without an intermingling, and in different areas was also laid down by this Court in H.N. Rishbud v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1954) 2 SCC 934 and further elaborated and reiterated in Abhinandan Jha and Others v. Dinesh Mishra 1967 SCC OnLine SC 107 and State of Orissa v. Habibullah Khan 2003 SCC OnLine SC 1411. 20. In Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI, New Delhi (2003) 5 SCC 257, even though the subject matter of the dispute pertained to Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as "KVSS 1998"), the observations of this Court came to the rescue of the Assessee-Company therein. As per the said factual matrix, the case of the Assessee-Company therein was settled under the KVSS 1998 on 10.02.1999 by the Designated Authority and as per the terms of the settlement, the Assessee-Company therein withdrew the appeal before this Court on 16.03.1999....