9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (for short 'Act') against respondents and S.S. Khaitan, who has since died. The allegations in the complaint are that respondent No-1 - Company is engaged in the manufacture of paper falling under tariff item 48 of the Central Excise Tariff. The respondent No. 1 had been availing the benefit of concessional rate of duty in respect of paper (packing grade) notification No. 138/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 on the ground that such paper was manufactured out of pulp containing not less than 50% by weight of pulp made from material (other than bamboo, hardwood, softwood, rags or logs). 3. On 26-12-1988 the preventive staff of the Central Excise Collector, Chandigarh visited the factory premises of respondent No. 1 at B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere responsible for the above mentioned acts and omissions and have thus committed offence. A prayer was made in the complaint for punishing the respondents in accordance with law. 5. The respondents were summoned. In the pre-charge evidence, the complainant examined CW-1 Mehal Singh, Superintendent of Central Excise Division, Dera Bassi. He supported the prosecution case. He has stated that he was associated with K.G. Kanwar, Superintendent and Balwinder Singh, Inspector in the raiding party. He has stated that it was found that the accused had availed Central Excise duty concession by concealing the fact of misusing the notification No. 138/86-C.E. (as amended on 1-3-1986). He has shown his ignorance that in the raiding party any in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s examined. The complainant has failed to prove the show cause notice was issued within prescribed time. In brief, the learned Judicial Magistrate held that there is nothing on record to charge the accused for offence punishable under Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 were discharged for offence punishable under Section 9 of the Act. In so far respondent No. 4 is concerned, it was ordered that he has been declared proclaimed offender and the case file be revived as and when he is apprehended by the police or he surrenders before the court. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o opportunities to produce the evidence. In the facts and circumstances and the seriousness of the case the learned Judicial Magistrate has not exercised jurisdiction properly in closing the evidence of the complainant. 11. It has not been pointed out at the time of hearing on either side that prior sanction under the Act is required for prosecuting the accused before filing the complaint. The Circular No. 15/90-CX.6, dated 9-8-1990 is the internal circular of the department and it refers what steps are to be taken before filing the complaint. The aforesaid circular cannot be read that any sanction is required under the Act before filing the complaint. The Section 11A of the Act is regarding recovery of duties whereas offences and pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
