TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (11) TMI 312
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gs (Pvt.) Ltd., its Managing Director and 8 directors. It was inter alia alleged in the complaint that :- (i) M/s. Metal Forgings (Pvt.) Ltd. is a company engaged in the manufacture of steel ingots. (ii) On 24-7-87, the Officers of the Central Excise Collectorate visited the factory of the company M/s. Metal Forgings (Pvt.) Ltd. situated at B-1, Maya Puri Industrial Area, New Delhi. At the time of the visit, Sh. R.K. Shrivastav, a director of the company was present in the said premises. (iii) Upon search of the said premises, incrimating documents were found which showed that the company was engaged in the large scale production of steel ingots but was accounting for only a fraction of total quantity produced and that the goods wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 3.75 lakhs on the accused company. 7. The accused company challenged the said adjudication order by filing an appeal before the CEGAT. After duly considering the evidence produced, vide order dated 24-8-94 the CEGAT partly allowed the appeal. In appeal CEGAT confirmed the demand of duty only with regard to 738.859 MT of MS ingots and also reduced personal penalty to Rs. 25,000/-. 8. Against the order dated 24-8-94 passed by the CEGAT in appeal, the accused company filed a rectification application before the CEGAT. Vide order dated 19-9-95, CEGAT set aside its earlier order dated 24-8-94 and exonerated the accused company. The findings of the CEGAT in so far they are relevant for consideration in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is to be determined on its own merits as per law uninhibited by the finding of the Tribunal........" 11. Feeling aggrieved by the afore-noted order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the accused company, its managing director and 2 directors who were impleaded as accused nos. 2, 5 and 6 respectively in the complaint have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the complaint and proceedings emanating out of the said complaint. 12. In support of the petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the reasons given by the ACMM that in all cases irrespective of exoneration in adjudication proceedings, the criminal proceedings would continue is not correct. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 30-3-90, order of CEGAT having attained finality, was the complaint liable to be quashed. 15. I need not deal with the rival judgments cited for the reason taking note of the various judgments on the issue including the ones noted above and especially the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Standard Chartered Bank's case (supra) [2005 (197) E.L.T. 18 (S.C.)], A.K. Sikri, J. of this court in Sunil Gupta's case (supra) has held as under :- "25…….In fact, various cases of the Supreme Court, note whereof is taken above, deal with different situations. The principles which can be culled out from the aforesaid judgments, when all these judgments are read out harmoniously, would be the following : 1. On the same violation alleged ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s or the adjudication proceedings were on different facts, it would have no bearing on criminal proceedings. If, on the other hand, the exoneration in the adjudication proceedings is on merits and it is found that allegations are not substantiated at all and the concerned person(s) is/are innocent, and the criminal prosecution is also on the same set of facts and circumstances, the criminal prosecution cannot be allowed to continue. The reason is obvious criminal complaint is filed by the Departmental authorities alleging violation/contravention of the provisions of the Act on the part of the accused persons. However, if the Departmental authorities themselves, in adjudication proceedings, record a categorical and unambiguous finding that t....