Latest - TMI e-Newsletter
New User/ Regiser
2021 (10) TMI 384 - Central Excise
Evasion of duty or not - Process amounting to manufacture or not - goods specified in third Schedule involving packing and re-packing etc - scope of "Manufacturer" as contained in Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- Whether the process undertaken by the revision petitioners resulted into emergency of manufactured goods will depend upon the test laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SOUTH BIHAR SUGAR MILLS LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [1968 (2) TMI 36 - SUPREME COURT] and in the case of UNION OF INDIA VERSUS DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD. [1962 (10) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] - As to the interpretation of the said provision with the guidelines as prescribed by the Hon'ble Apex Court can be gone into only at the time of trial and hence, it is always open to the revision petitioners/accused to confront and challenge the department witness during the cross-examination.
The trial Court has rightly passed an order dismissing the discharge petition filed by the petitioners and the same does not suffer from any perversity in finding and hence, the point is that the revision petitioners are tax evaders or not depends upon the fact that they are the manufacturer or fabricator and hence, the factual position has to be determined by the accused during the cross-examination of department witness and hence, the same cannot be determined at this stage. Therefore, the order of dismissal of discharge petition is confirmed.
This Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.