TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 703
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."Anil Swami Versus Dhillon Kool Drinks & Beverages Ltd. and others" dated 02.08.2008 (Annexure P/5) under Sections 9 and 9AA of the Central Excise Act, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, as well as summoning order dated 07.01.2009 (Annexure P/6) passed therein. 2. Briefly stated, the complaint was filed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Panipat, against the present petitioners under Sections 9 and 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 alleging that petitioner No.1-Company was engaged in manufacturing aerated water (Pepsi) at its factory situated at Village Asgarpur, G.T. Road, Panipat and was holding Central Excise registration for manufacture of aerated water. It was alleged in the complaint t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oners contends that the entire dispute pertains to adjudication under the Central Excise Act and the petitioners had already deposited the duty amount along with interest much prior to issuance of the show cause notice. It is further contended that the adjudication order dated 11.10.2006 was initially passed ex parte by the Commissioner, Central Excise, against which the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned CESTAT and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication vide order dated 09.04.2007. It is further contended that thereafter fresh order dated 19.11.2007 was passed by the Commissioner confirming the demand and imposing penalty, against which the petitioners again preferred appeal before the learned CESTAT and the operati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ithdrawn vide orders dated 06.09.2010 and 25.02.2011, respectively, as at that stage the appeal before the learned CESTAT was still pending and no final adjudication had been rendered in favour of the petitioners. It is contended that after passing of the final order dated 31.08.2016 by the learned CESTAT, a fresh cause of action accrued in favour of the petitioners and therefore the present petition is maintainable, particularly when the earlier petitions were not dismissed on merits but were merely withdrawn. It is thus argued that in view of the subsequent adjudication by the learned CESTAT completely setting aside the demand and holding that there was no contravention of the Rules, continuation of the criminal complaint and summoning or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ulminated in favour of the petitioners. Learned counsel has, however, not disputed the fact that the duty amount along with interest stood deposited by the petitioners. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper-book as well as the judgments relied upon. 6. At the outset, this Court finds that the present petition cannot be held to be non-maintainable merely because earlier two petitions were dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 06.09.2010 and 25.02.2011 respectively. A perusal of the said orders clearly reveals that the earlier petitions were not dismissed on merits and no adjudication was made by this Court upon the controversy involved. At the relevant time, the appeal preferred by the petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommissioner of Central Excise, 2007 (12) RCR (Criminal) 883 held that though adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution may simultaneously continue, however criminal prosecution cannot be permitted to continue once the competent appellate authority decides the matter on merits in favour of the assessee and the very basis of prosecution disappears. 8. In the present case also, the learned CESTAT has not granted relief to the petitioners on any technical ground, rather the matter has been adjudicated on merits and a categorical finding has been recorded that the petitioners had not contravened the provisions of Rule 8(3A) of the Rules. The learned CESTAT has also specifically noticed that the disputed amount along with interest had ....