TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 708X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi about the liability of the company to pay the excise duty which it had allegedly evaded. The basis of the said complaint itself goes with the judgment and order dated 10th September, 2004 passed by the Apex Court and, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 875 of 1998 (Shailendra Sharma vs. ITC and others) cannot continue to prosecute the company and its directors. The proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 875 of 1998 (Shailendra Sharma vs. ITC and others) pending before the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut are hereby quashed. - Application U/S 482 No. - 11882 of 2008, Application U/S 482 No. - 3251 of 1999 - - - Dated:- 14-12-2018 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (company Directors) responsible for evasion of Central Excise Duty had imposed penalty amounting to ₹ 14.5 crores against the company and ₹ 3.15 crores against the Directors. At the time of lodging of the said complaint, the matter was pending before the Customs, Excise and Gold (control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) [(now known as the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)] in an appeal filed against the order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi. The allegations against the company in the complaint was that it had contravened the provisions of Rules 9(1), 52, 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, inasmuch as, the company had falsely and fraudulently declared to the proper officer and on the cigarett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e company as also the department. Both the Special Leave Petitions were converted into Civil Appeal No. 70 of 1999 (ITC Ltd. vs. CCE) and Civil Appeal No. 6101 of 1998 (CCE vs. ITC Ltd.) and were decided together vide judgment and order dated 10th September, 2004 reported in (2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 591 (ITC Ltd. vs. Commissioner Central Excise New Delhi and another) . The Apex Court has allowed the Civil Appeal No. 70 of 1999 filed by the company whereas the appeal filed by the department has been dismissed. The demand raised against the appellant company, had thus been set aside. While setting aside the demand, the Apex Court has observed in paragraph '55', '56' and '57' as under:- 55. The Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... responsible for the tendency of the retailers to charge higher than the printed price so as to secure larger margin and that different prices may be actually charged for the same brand all over the country. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the printed MRP should have been the reasonable price at which the cigarettes could be sold. This led the Tribunal and the adjudicating authority to go into an elaborate exercise to determine what should be that single reasonable price for the entire country which should have been declared and printed by the appellant on the packages. 56. In our opinion the outcome of this would be equally illogical. It envisages an excise officer in one part of the country determining what would be the reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Excise, New Delhi v. M/s. ITC Ltd.). The impugned demands raised against the appellant are set aside without any order as to costs. In the face of the aforesaid findings returned by the Apex Court, it is evident that the demands raised by the department with the allegation of evasion of excise duty on the part of the company and the directors had been set aside in toto. The result is that the show cause notice dated 27.3.1987 stood quashed. No proceeding, therefore, could have been continued against the company on the allegations of evasion of excise duty. The criminal complaint dated 31.8.1998 is based on the findings of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi about the liability of the company to pay the excise duty which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
