TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limit for launching prosecutions to Rs.25 lakhs is not disputed. The said enhancement of monetary limit was prospective in nature and squarely applicable to the benefit of the appellant in the present facts and circumstances. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishna Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh [ 2012 (12) TMI 1232 - SUPREME COURT] held that under the Indian criminal jurisprudence, the accused has two fundamental protections available to him in a criminal trial or investigation. Firstly, he is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty and secondly that he is entitled to a fair trial and investigation. Both these facets attain even greater significance where the accused has a judgment of acquittal in his favour. A judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the 1st respondent Company are manufacturers of polyester textured yarn and twisted yarn and fall within the ambit of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It was found by the complainant that the respondents were procuring raw material on fictitious names and using them for manufacture of finished goods resulting in evasion of Central Excise Duty. On 11.10.1996, the Central Excise Officers physically verified the premises of Accused No.1 company and having gone through the books maintained and also the stocks available found discrepancies in textured yarn goods and twisted yarn goods which were in excess and some of the textured yarn was in shortage. Thereafter, proceedings were conducted in the factory premises and also residential premises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it was not open for the complainant to launch prosecution proceedings or to continue the prosecution proceedings against the respondents, having regard to Ex.D8 which is appeal order dt.28.02.2006 and also in view of Ex.D6- a confidential circular issued by the Department, dt.04.04.1996. Exs.D6 and D7 are the circulars of the Central Excise Department which are not disputed by PW1, which are the circulars issued framing guidelines for launching prosecution under Central Excise Act, 1944 and enhancement of monetary limit which prescribed for launching prosecution was 25 lakhs prospectively from 12.12.1997. Ex.D7 is another circular dt.04.04.1994 issued clarifying guidelines for prosecution under the Central Excise Act, 1944, that before la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roneous conclusion that the duty imposed on accused is less than Rs.25 lakhs. In the CESTAT order dt.28.06.2006 which is Ex.D8, the Special Counsel submits that the said Tribunal has not reduced the payment of Rs. 1.16 crores, but upheld the demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority. However, the adjudicating authority permitted the accused to adjust benefit of CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) credit of about Rs.96.00 lakhs. Permitting the CENVAT credit does not reduce the demand but gives the accused a choice to pay part of the duty demanded by utilizing the credit. However, the total demand of duty and confiscation were upheld by the Tribunal but reduced the penalties. 11. Though, CESTAT had decided the issue, ultimately it has re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
