TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 824X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... know has been set aside by the Tribunal, prosecution of petitioners is also not sustainable and, therefore, it should not be quashed. The prosecution of petitioners is not sustainable and consequently this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is, therefore, allowed and Criminal Case No. 554 of 2003, under Section 9 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 pending in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Economic Offences), Lucknow is hereby quashed - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - Case U/S 482/378/407 No. 208 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 19-1-2017 - Ravindra Nath Mishra-II, J. Shri Manish Singh, for the Appellant. Shri Dipak Seth, Rajesh Singh Chauhan, for the Respondent. ORDER Heard Shri Manish Si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,000/- on the petitioners and in addition thereto a penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- was also imposed on the petitioners. 6. Against the order passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Lucknow dated 31-10-2001, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zone Bench, Mumbai and the Tribunal allowed the appeal vide its order dated 20-12-2005, set aside the order passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Lucknow. 7. A legal question has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner, the prosecution of petitioners is not sustainable, therefore, the quashment of the proceeding of the criminal case, pending agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od of 18 months in dispute, the correctness thereof has not been challenged by the Department. The marketing declaration filed by the appellants also clearly stated that the prices vary from buyer to buyer, territory to territory and State to State. Therefore, the allegation in the notice that the appellants have suppressed from the Deptt. The fact that there was variation in the prices is not correct. The monthly RT-12 returns have also been audited by the Deptt. The records also contain various audit intimations clearly evidencing that the Deptt. was conducting necessary audit from time to time and verifying the appellants records. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the larger period is not invocable. 5. In view of the abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
