1989 (4) TMI 89

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ences under Sections 9(l)(b), 9(l)(bb), 9(l)(bbb), 9(l)(c), 9(l)(d) and Section 17 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The allegation is that the accused were clearing excisable goods, namely, meters and instruments manufactured by them, outside the factory on returnable challans without payment of Central Excise duty thereon and without following Central Excise procedures applicable in respect of fully manufactured excisable goods to be cleared outside the factory premises and without any permission from the proper officer to allow them to deviate from the procedure prescribed under the law. According to the prosecution, though initially they thought that the accused had removed goods worth Rs. 17,52,980/- without payment of the Cen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d that unless it can be said that the Directors are responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company no such Directors can ever be prosecuted under this Act. His submission is that it was the Manager of the Company who made a mistake in allowing certain goods to be sent out of the factory premises without the payment of the duty under a mistaken belief and that, therefore, he alone should have been prosecuted and not the Directors. He, however, agrees that the Company being a person can, of course, be prosecuted. 5. It is not necessary for me to decide this question at this stage. However, I am aware that in certain cases the Supreme Court has stated that it is only such of the Directors who have taken part in the transaction o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... point of time to argue that they cannot be liable under the Act. 6. Mr. Desai then submitted that in the adjudication proceedings before the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, the Collector has come to the conclusion that the petitioners and the company had no mala fide intention to evade payment. He, therefore, submitted, relying on certain observations made by Kotwal J. in the Criminal Application No. 709 of 1981 decided by him on 6/7th August, 1984, that if there was no mens rea and they had not intentionally evaded a duty, then, in that there would be no purpose in prosecuting the petitioners as in any event they would ultimately be acquitted. It is in this connection I asked Mr. Desai to furnish to the Court a copy of the ord....