Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (7) TMI 1784

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n filed along with the complaint as document No.11. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the prosecution has been launched without any approval/sanction from the concerned authority cannot be accepted - Whether the said sanction/approval is in accordance with Central Excise Act and Rules is a matter for trial, which cannot be decided in the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Jurisdiction - contention of petitioners is that the complaint has been filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, when the factory of the first respondent is located at Gummidipoondi - Held that:- This contention of the learned counsel for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Unit, during surveillance, inspected a truck bearing registration No. TN-72-5238 in front of M/s Madras Lamps (P) Ltd., Gummidipoondi, carrying PVC Pipes. On interrogation, it was found that the driver of the vehicle carried 1000 PVC Pipes loaded at M/s Mathura Polymers (P) Ltd., Gummidipoondi (MPPL) in his truck with an instruction to unload the same at M/s Vijay Aqua Pipes (P) Limited, the first accused company. The officer after recording the statement of Mr.G.Govindaraj, driver of the truck, proceeded to M/s Mathura Polymers (pvt) Limited, Gummidipoondi and verified the physical stock of finished goods i.e. PVC pipes and also recovered some incriminating documents namely chits showing clearance of PVC pipes made to the first accused com .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nvoices and they have also manufactured and cleared such excisable goods namely PVC pipes, without payment of duty and without following the Central Excise Procedures. 3. The complainant in his complaint has further averred that the first accused have availed modvat credit on the input/raw materials purchased by them and have cleared certain inputs to job work under Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 , that they have cleared certain inputs under their own private challans, without following the procedures, as set out under 57 F(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for conversion into PVC pipes, to M/s Mathura Polymers (Pvt) Limited and that they have received back the finished PVC pipes on chits prepared by M/s Mathura Polymer ( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ct 1944 read with Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The accused received the said notice and sent their reply dated 24.02.2000 and 28.02.2000, denying all the allegations of the respondent/complainant. The specific contention of the respondent/complainant is that the accused have manufactured dutiable excisable goods and removed the same without Central Excise License/Registration Certificate in contravention of Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 6 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and have removed such dutiable goods without payment of appropriate duty payable thereon in contravention of Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and without raising Gate Passes/invoices in contravention of Rule 52 A of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... entral Excise Act is a condition precedent and that -since the present complaint is filed without obtaining prior approval from the competent authority, the entire proceedings is liable to be quashed. He drew the attention of this court to para No.36 of the complaint in E.O.C.C.No.1 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, wherein, it has been mentioned that there is no provision under this Act, which requires any authority to grant any statutory sanction for prosecution 6. Per contra, Mr.N.S.Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent would contend that in the instant case, prior approval for launching prosecution against the present petitioners was obtained and that th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates