TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 167
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t dated 05.02.2016 passed by the High Court (hereinafter, "Impugned Judgment"), the strength of the argument for discharge application, as raised by the Appellants has primarily been the quashing of departmental proceedings initiated by the Respondent No. 2 herein (hereinafter, "Respondent-Department") against the Appellant by the High Court in Writ Tax No.771 of 2015 on similar grounds, the criminal proceedings are, not sustainable against the Appellants. 3. The factual matrix, as selectively presented by the Appellants, reveals that on 22.11.2007, a search was conducted at the premises, offices and factories, of Appellant No. 1, unearthing serious irregularities that culminated in the initiation of proceedings via two separate Show Cause Notices (hereinafter, "SCNs"). The first, dated 16.05.2008 (hereinafter, "First SCN"), alleged clandestine manufacture and illicit removal of excisable goods. The second, dated 06.03.2009 (hereinafter, "Second SCN"), attributed direct and vicarious liability to the Director(s) of Appellant No. 1 (specifically, Appellant No. 3) and M/s Juhi Alloys Limited, being Appellant No. 2 herein, for such unlawful removal of excisable goods during the Finan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in his stand despite the procedural setback. 9. Consequently, Complaint Case No. 841 of 2014 was instituted before the Trial Court under Sections 9 and 9AA of the CEA 1944 (hereinafter, "Complaint"), and summons were issued against the Appellants on 02.05.2014, signalling the commencement of criminal proceedings based on the evidence then available. 10. In response, the Appellants sought to stall the criminal trial by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC 1973"), through Criminal Misc. 482 Application No. 31300 of 2014. The High Court, while granting interim protection, refused to quash the proceedings outright and directed the Appellants to avail the remedy of discharge before the Trial Court vide Order dated 21.08.2014. 11. Following this direction, the Appellants moved a discharge application under Section 245(2) of CrPC 1973 before the Trial Court. The matter was heard on 24.08.2015 and listed for orders on 01.09.2015, with the Appellants attempting to shield themselves from prosecution based on technicalities. 12. Meanwhile, the re-adjudication pursuant to the Order dated 25.02.2013 of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is a prima facie case against the Appellants, the Criminal Revision No. 4581 of 2015 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide judgment dated 05.02.2016. 17. Challenging the said Impugned Judgment, the Appellants moved this Court vide Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2583 of 2016 for which leave was granted, leading to the instant Criminal Appeal. 18. Assailing the Impugned Judgment, it is argued by the learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the Appellants that the basis of the Complaint was solely the sanction granted on the strength of the Order dated 31.03.2011, which had been set aside already, making it non-maintainable. Even the Order dated 28.08.2015, which was passed behind the back of the Appellants, was also set aside with harsh observations against the Commissioner of Central Excise at Kanpur. This fact was ignored by both the Trial Court and the High Court while considering their discharge application, and revision petition respectively. 19. It is further brought on record that the subsequent order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise at Lucknow vide Order dated 31.03.2017 was also conditionally stayed by the High Court in Writ Tax N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....indication against the Appellants and has not followed the principles of natural justice, which would, held in the decision of this Court in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and Another (1988) 2 SCC 602, render the act or proceedings a nullity. 23. Finally, in his attempt to distinguish the decision in Radheyshyam Kejriwal (supra), learned Senior Counsel submits that unlike in this case, the dispute involved in the said case was under the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973, which cannot be equated to CEA 1944. Moreover, the criminal prosecution and the adjudication proceedings were initiated almost simultaneously, with independent specific averments of facts. Even the application for discharge was not filed under Section 245(2) of CrPC 1973. Furthermore, while the adjudication proceedings were not held as binding on the criminal proceedings, herein, the entire Complaint is based on a non-existent Order as it stood quashed by the High Court. 24. On the basis of the above submissions, prayer has, thus, been made for allowing the appeal by setting aside the Impugned Judgment and allowing the application for discharge of the Appellant. 25. The learned Additional Solicitor General (her....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contention on the conditional stay of the Order dated 31.03.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise at Lucknow by the High Court in Writ Tax No. 370 of 2017 does not come to the assistance of the Appellants. The above Order dated 31.08.2017 has been passed on merits by the Commissioner of Central Excise at Lucknow in pursuance to and in compliance with the directions issued by the High Court vide Order dated 31.05.2017. Further, stay thereof, was subject to the payment of the liability imposed on the Appellants by impugned order in the pending writ and submission of surety on the penalty imposed. 30. The Order dated 31.03.2017, impugned in the aforesaid writ has been passed on merits, and that too not by the concerned Commissioner of Central Excise at Kanpur, against whom there were allegations of vindication, but by that of Lucknow. Further, stay thereof, was still subject to the payment of the liability imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise at Lucknow on the Appellants and submission of surety on the penalty imposed. 31. Collectively, in the light of aforesaid perusal of the relevant orders, a reference to Radheyshyam Kejriwal (supra) reveals that, as in the p....