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

1996 (5) TMI 90

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and attracting liability to pay excise duty. On October 13, 1988, the officers of the Excise and Customs Department conducted a survey at the business premises of petitioner's Company and found that the said Company had cleared 849.52 Sq. Mts. of marbles slabs, without payment of excise duty amounting to Rs. 8,919.96. It further appears that on examination of the record pertaining to production of slabs and gate passes it was also found that during the period from October 9, 1988 to October 13, 1988 the petitioner's Company had cleared 330.05 Sq. Mts. of marbles slabs, without accounting for in RG 1 Register and without payment of duty amounting to Rs. 3,465/-. The officers were, therefore, of the opinion th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y of this petition. 4.Mr. P.K. Kasliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the order/circular/guidelines issued by the Board were binding on the officers of the Department of the Excise and Customs Department and therefore, the complaint filed in contravention of the binding circulars was not maintainable. In support of his contention Mr. Kasliwal relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of K.P. Verghees - 131 ITR 592. The learned counsel produced the relevant circulars before me. The copy of the order, dated 28 July, 1989 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Customs Division Jaipur, was also produced. The learned counsel appearing for the Excise and Customs Department could not dispute th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e duty evaded or attempted to be evaded was Rs. 10,000/- or more. In the cases involving amounts less than that prosecution should not ordinarily be launched. The cases or habitual offenders may be taken into account while deciding whether the prosecution was called for or not. 7.From the above guidelines it is evident that in order to avoid prosecution in minor cases it was considered proper by the Board that prosecution should not normally be launched in those cases where the duty avoided or attempted to be evaded was less than Rs. 10,000/-. Such guidelines were, however, not applicable to the cases of habitual offenders. 8.By a subsequent Circular of August 9, 1990 the limit of Rs. 10,000/- as fixed by the circular, dated July 26, 19 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... involving negligible or less amounts of evaded excise duty. 10.Section 36B of the Act, empowers the Board issue orders, instruction and guidelines for the proper and effective administration of the Act, the language of Section 36B clearly suggests that once the orders instructions and directions are issued by the Board to the Central Excise Officers, such officers and all the persons employed in the execution of the Act shall observe and follow them. The language of the section, therefore, clearly speaks that the orders, instructions and directions issued by the Board to the Central Excise Officers would be having binding force. 11.In the case of K.P. Verghees (supra), the Supreme Court held that the circulars issued by the Central Boar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t, beneficial to the interest of the subject. Moreover, the intention behind issuing such circulars was not to launch fruitless criminal litigation and waste public money and energy in prosecution involving petty amounts. Since the order passed by the learned Assistant Collector in the present case clearly stated that the petitioner had evaded payment of excise duty amounting to Rs. 8,919.26 only which was a figure below Rs. 10,000/-, no prosecution should have been launched in view of the clear and specific circulars issued by the Board. The continuation of the prosecution in violation of the binding circulars of the Board, in my opinion amounts to abuse of the process of the court and therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitio .....

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