9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the same was converted into an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 15.01.2016 and resultantly the said application has been put up before this Court for its disposal. 3. The facts, which are narrated in the application, are to the effect that the petitioner is one of the Directors of an Industrial Unit engaged in manufacture and sale of Iron & Steel Product under the name of M/s Nursingh Ispat Ltd. On 26.09.2015, a search and seizure operation was carried out by the officers of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Jamshedpur at the factory site at the office at Jamshedpur and at the registered office at Howrah, West Bengal, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereas if the evasion is above Rs. 1 crore, the same is a cognizable and non bailable offence. Learned counsel submits that final quantifications of the alleged evasion have admittedly not been done and in such circumstance before praying for remand of the petitioner in judicial custody, no final outcome with respect to the exact amount of alleged evasion was arrived at. Learned counsel further submits that even in the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties, nothing has been brought on record to suggest that quantification of the alleged evasion has been finally assessed and that being the position, the petitioner could not have been remanded to custody on the basis of committing a non bailable offence. Mr. Sinha further submits tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26.09.2015, the officers of the DGCEI, JRU had conducted search operations on a complaint in different premises related to M/s Narsingh Ispat Limited. During search, several incriminating articles were recovered and seized. During search of the factory, finished excisable goods were found short physically when compared with the statutory records. Learned counsel submits that preliminary scrutiny of the documents seized indicates that quantum of evasion of Central Excise duty by Narsingh Ispat Limited is to the tune of Rs. 10 crores. Learned counsel further submits that prima facie when it has been established that evasion of excise duty is over and above one crore, the offence automatically in terms of the provisions of the Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... second part of argument is with respect to non confirming with the provisions of Sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Act. Addressing the first issue, it appears that the opposite parties have not disputed that final quantification of the amount of excise duty allegedly evaded by Narsingh Ispat Limited had not been finalized and the amount arrived at is a tentative or a prima facie assessment of evasion. It does not appear from the facts of the case that evasion of excise duty as alleged touches on the border line to enable the petitioner to claim that the offence is bailable and non cognizable in nature. The prima facie assessment on scrutiny of the documents and on physical verification of the materials indicate evasion of excise duty at almost ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst him. (2) For this purpose the Central Excise Officer may exercise the same powers and shall be subject to the same provisions as the officer-in-charge of a police-station may exercise and is subject to under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898)1, when investigating a cognizable case: Provided that- (a) if the Central Excise Officer is of opinion that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion against the accused person, he shall either admit him to bail to appear before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case, or forward him in custody to such Magistrate; (b) if it appears to the Central Excise Officer that there is not sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion against the accused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that respondent no. 2 being an Intelligence Officer was not empowered to act in terms of Sections 19 and 21 of the Act. This contention has not been controverted either in the counter affidavit or in course of argument and with respect to authorization what has been stated in the counter affidavit is with respect to Section 13 of the Act, which relates to power to arrest and which power was delegated to respondent no. 2 by the Additional Director General of Central Excise, Intelligence, Kolkata Zonal Unit. The power of arrest as envisaged in Section 13 of the Act does not co relate with sections 19 and 21 of the Act. The respondent no. 2 may have been given the power to arrest, which he had exercised but nothing has been indicated as to w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
