High Court quashed Criminal Complaint No. 112 of 2016 filed under Central Excise Act. Court held that proceedings violated statutory procedures and limitation norms despite specific contention of abetting an offence.
Criminal Complaint No. 112 of 2016 on file of Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad is quashed
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8088 OF 2016
Between:
M/S INDIA EXTRUSION, Having its factory situated at Plot No. 9/13-1 , lDA, Nacharam, Hyderabad - 76 Represented by its Managing Drrector, Sri Devender Surana, S/o. Sri G.M. Surana, Aged about 51 years, resident of Hyderabad.
.PETTTIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
THE ASST., COMMISSINER (PROSECUTION), Central Excise and Customs, Hyderabad lV Commissionerate, Posnett Bhavan, Ramkote, Tilak Road, Hyderabad500 001 , Represented by the Special Public Prosecutor, Customs and Central Excise, High Court, Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to pass an orderquashing CC.No.112 ot 2O16 on thefile of Special Judge for Economic Offences at Hyderabad andpass.
l.A. NO: 3 OF 2019
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.Cpraying thatin thecircumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds ofCriminal Petition,the Hrgh Courtmay be pleased topass an orderextending theinterim order dated1410212019 granted by this Honourable Court in lA.No. 1 of 2018in Crl.P.No.8088of 2018 for a period of 6 months.
..'L- '
t.A. NO:1 OF201€
Petition Ln(,rr Sectron 482 of Cr.P.Cprayin€l that in th-. circumstances stated in theArk:nr rr,rndumof Grounds of Criminal Petitiorr, :he High Court may be pleased topa;s an order extending the interim order dzrted 18-12-2018 granted by thts-1c'rc'urable Court in lA.No. 1 ol 2018 in Crl.r.No. 8088 of 2018 for a period of 6 m rnths.
l.A. NO: 4 OF 2019
Petition unC :r Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in thr.. circumstances stated in the lVerrr r:rndum of Grounds of Criminal Petitior, lhe High Court may be pleased to oxl )rding the rnterim order dated 3,0.07.;10 19 granted by this Hon'ble court in I I .l'lo 03/2019 in Crl.P.No.8088l2O16 for a pe|iod of 6 months and pass
l.A. NO: 2 OF 2O1S
Petition u rd r S--ctron 482 of Cr.P.C praying thal n ther circumstances stated in the l\rlerlr r::ndum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, rlhe High Court may be pleased to l)a s ar order extendrng the interim ord:r dated 1410212019 granted by thrs I-i o orrable Court in IA.No. 1 of 2019 in Crl ['.Nr:.8088 of 2016 for a period of {i nronths and pass such further or otht,r c'rder(s) as this Honourable Courl( :t:ms fit and proper in the circumstanCes of the case.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 20:13
Petition un(], r Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in thef\4enrc randum of Grounds of Criminal Pr-.tition tlre ligh Court may be pleased to Ias ; an order extendrng the interint order dared 27-12-2022 granted by this Hor ble Court rn CRLP No. 8088 of 2O16 for a period of 6 months and pass
l.A. NO: 1OF 2018
Pertition urclr Section 482 of Cr P.C praying that ir the circumstances stated in the l,'lernr-- .r rdunr of Grounds of Criminal Petition, tfre lligh Court may
--9
be pleased to pass an order extending the interim order dated 15.6,2016 granted by this Hon'ble Court in Crl.P.ltlP.No. 8930 of 2016 in Crl.P.No.8088 of 2016 for a period of 6 months and pass
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(CRLPMP. NO: 8585 OF 2016)
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order dispensing with the filing of the certified copy of the complaint bearing CC No. 112 of 2016 filed by the Respondent before the Hon'ble Special Judge for Economic Offences, City Criminal Courts, Nampally, Hyderabad and pass
l.A. NO: 5 OF 2019
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order extending the interim order dated 13-09-2019 granted by this Hon'ble Court in l.A.No. 4 of 20'lg in CRLP No. 8088 of 2016 for a period of 6 months and pass
l.A. NO: 2 oF 2016(CRLPMP. NO:8930 OF201!)
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\ilemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order staying all furtherproceedings in CC.No.11212016 on the file of the Special Juuge for Economic Offences at Hyderabadincluding the personal appearance of Sri Devender Surana, Managing Director of the Petitioner company
l.A. NO: 1OF 2020
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.Cpraying thatin the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of CriminalPetition,the High Courtmay bepleased topass an orderextending the interimorder dt: 2011112015 granted by this Hon'ble Court in l.A. No 5/2019 in CrlP.No. 8088of 2019 for period of 6 months and pass
//, // // ,
This Petitior coming on for hearing, upon perus ng re V,lemorandum of Grounds of Crirnir al Petition and upon hearing the argum:nt:; of Sri S.Ravi, senior counsel-el resenting Sri cH.pushyam Kiran, Acvo rate for the petitioner and the Special F _rtrlic Prosecutor for Cenlral Excise and Customs (TG), on behalf of the Re:;p< ntlent.
The Court made th .r following: ORDER
j J I 1 iiI: : 3( I t i
I I ON' I} I-I' SMI",I IJSI'IC E G. AN IJPAMA CI{AKRAVARTTIY CIIIMINAL PETI'IION No.80 88 of 2016
ORDEIT:
'l his pcrition is lllcd scel<ing to quash the proceedings in (' C .\o. I ll ol l() I6 on LI.re {ilc of Special Judge for Economic ollu'rrce s. I I,r rlc.abacr- [i rccr Lr,der Section 9 of the centrar Excise r\et. Ir)-l l. on tltc ctintplairrL liied b1, the respondent.
l. IIcar.tl Sr.i S.llar i, learned Senior Counsel appearing lbr I)cr-itioncr:rrrti Llrc lcar-necr Specialpubric prosecutor fbr central I:rcisc unij ( risiont:. lrlrpclrrinq litr r.cspondent. perused the record.
-i. irr nLrr'lttli. llrr lircrs ol'Lhe petition are that, the petitioner is a ,l.,t.l:rLlLrr(r lt:r,. i,:t it, l.le t()r) itt Nachara,l and is register.cci ri itit tltr ( .rrrr:ri I ,.. i:e [)cpar.t.rc,t_ It rnanufacture bxcise goods viz-.. ('oppur .\llo-r I)rodLrc[s likc rtrbes, copper wire, copper rods etc. Ilrc pcriirrrrrer. :rlso takes_up job worts from the othor_ tttartttl;ietLrrirrrt ( orr1p111ij,_.r. It is t[c specific contention of thc pctitiortcl tltlrl tlrr_i rr cr-c 6btuilipg raw-material inputS fi.or1 Litosc- nlrrrLiltL.urri;tr, ( ()lltl)lutics trncl ar[ier the gOods bcinu. nllrrrrlirr'iiir...i. rlr.' .rra lliL, Lrsccl ro lre sent to thetn rvithor-rt
t
')
G,1C, I ( rl. t' . :o.lir)83 ol )016
pavlnent ol'I xcise Duty, and accorclinql.. dut.ing tlr: period l,e April. 2004 l ) October 2006, rhe peririoner lras rLrLd rrtNken the works rel,ati rg to the rlanulictr-rrc ol'.,Cio1:1.r, Mo th cr Shells/Tubes" on behalf of N{, s. Sorralianrl N4Lr ri l-:ch (p) Linrited (in sl o't''SMTPL") o. .j.h rr.rl< basi : a.rrl i:lcar...d sr,rch goods u,ithol i payment ol (lcntral I;rcise clutr. r.!s Del. lhe provisions .l ht: (lentral Excise .'\ct. i. r'e sl.rcct .r'sLr :[.r cl.ar.arce. the liability' to pay Excise Dutl rs c.rsl u[()n rhi sL ppLr. r ol goocls i.e. the plinc,ip Ll manufactur.er
3
GAC, J Crl.P.No.8088 o[ 2016
invoking extendecl 1rcriod ol- limitation, wherein, notice was also issued to thc pctitionet' and \,as asked to show cause as to why perralty shall not be iurposccl on thc petitioner under Rule 26 of the Ce rrrral [-.xcisc Il Lrlcs. ]001. lirr rihich, the petitioner filed a dctailcd rcplr . I lre r-cu ticr'. rhc Conunissioner passed order dated 23.12.2010 inrposing penahv ol Rs.20,00,000/-, to the peritioner.
) ll c rlg asgricr cd b1 thc said order-in-original dated 23-12.20t0. thc pctirioner-prclirred an appeal before the Customs, E,xcisc and Scn icc ler .\ppcllate lribunal (in short 'CESTAT') vide Appcal \o lrj I I l0I I alon,r ri,ith application for waiver of prc-deposit. r rclc \lrplie rrion \o.l-.,'St/1319120lr1. After hearing thc sr-rbnrissior): ol' S\l I I'l- i,c. accused No.l in C.C.No.112 of 20 I6, thc(,HS L\ l lr:rs rlilcctcd SMTPL to deposit a sum of Rs.20,00.000.
I \
,l
G t(..t L tt." \t) li(,lili 0/ :ltl6
in-original l o 07/20 10, dated 2i.ll.l0 l() l).r:,:.( r_r ilrc
L espondcnt 7. It is the contentior-r of the learnecj Sclior ,.lorrn:i Sl S.l{avi appcaring fl:r lretitioner that C.C.N0.1 1l ol' l(ti6 is r I rc ,lLrashccl lol the 1'ollou, nli reasons
lr('n,rll<sup>ol' It .- 6,52,100- itttlr,iscil. r,ir, .'.r'. i:r.' 1.'.'n,riir
5
GAC'. J Crl.I'. i\o.30I8 of 20I 6
I :
inrposed or1 thc llctitiL)ncr hcrcin is lls.20,00,000i- on the ground
[hat the pctitioner allcqc(lly rirette.l thc ollcnce
Coop. Mill< P. t-lnion l.ltl.r.ulr.'r-cirr. it is held inparas l7 and18
as undet :
200 7) 11 SCC 36 1 I t
6
G.t( ../ ( t.l I \ ).3ll\tj o/ :ttt6
L T re .iudgment o1' Madlas I lief,- :r tL rn l hc c ) C-oruurissione of Income-fax, I'[te Disputc 1]csrtlutirrrt & othcrs ' Roca Bathroom Products l'rir irtc [-irrritcrl-
rrhcreirr. it is I :ld )npara27 as under:
l.ir'.ll!'T_lr'4 5 i 11: Q,ll
7
GAC, J L rl. l'..\ rt.301t I rtl )l)16
I! I 1I F ir
asscsslnent, \'oLtld ha\ e to bc completed within l2 months, as the ver)' purpose ol extension is to ensure that olders are passed ^,ithin the extendcd period. as othe lr,r,isc tlrc extension becotnes rneaningless.
(e)'l he outer tinre limit of l3 rnonths in case ol lef'erence to'[-[)O Lrnder Section 153, n,ould not relcr tt-r clra ft orcler, but only'to lirral orclcl encl hcncc. thc entirc plocecdings ri or-rld har c to bc couclr-tded ivithin thc tirnc liruits prescribed. (l) 'I hc rron-obstantc clitusc ri'ould not cxclucle the opcr-ation ol'Section [ 53 asa whole. It onll irnplies thar ilrcspcctive of availability o1' larqe r tirne to cortclttde the proceedings, flnal ordcrs are to bc passed within one rrouth in linc r'r'ith tlie schctnc ol the Act, (g) When no pcriocl ol linritation is prescribed. orclc|s arc to b.- irassed \ ithin a reasonable Iintc. rrltich in tr]\ casc cannot bc lrcr trtrrl .i _,' clrs. I lorr cvcr. when the strLute l)r'c\cr it,cs u pur[icttlar per-iod rvithirr u Irich olrlcrs urc to be passcd. therr sLre Ir pcriocl. in'csl.rcctir c of whethcr it is .lrt,rt or l()nq. shall be applicable."
ol' Cujaratl, wherein, it is hcld b1 tlre- llon'bl.' Suprerne Coult in
para l5 as under
"Whcre healing is obligutcrl [rr u :t:rtrrlc wlrieh al'tccts the lirndarnental ri,,ht ol e citiz.'n. Llrr clLrtr toqir c the
' AtR 1974 SC 1471
8
(, t( . I ( ,1.1,.\t) tt,,\ t,t :0 t4
lr-'rr irLil rIg soun(is in constitutional r(,,clL iret_::nt :rntl ll':lt r( r) t,.) r r1j conrply u,irhj11;11..1. le.'sislationsuch a du[-r is,rri"r ii, ,.i." rJ rravi,g,,;;;;;:ii;;,ilo'i,,i,lll, 'i,,1,.1, ",,,.1 lrl,ri tlr.'1 ,.,,11:ii,.::,,],mi,ran ilregaiit.,,,h cl, ,,, . ',1.,,r., nLrllitJr -'r t ,,,,, r ((c(] ,,), r, llts o, rtlrdabJc ol' appcal. r.cvisiorr rr hen a dircc ,, lf t;,e , .] i - ,,, .. '-,.,,,,le \ r\ ll)e c,\nsequencc ol t .,,,, ' t,,,,, r enr,e'"i;1"',i*,]i*ll',"ri::': i]:" i' ": r'()l)li,)| ,lir lt(r.. llrrl )n. sttirti\ c authoritv \c ntil\ t.()ultdl,\ concludc charged ri,irh tl.lt iltc. tl L , ,1,;i. ,.,1. il ,r;,,, , Jl()\a ].,1:,...'l,lll rratural .iusrice in rt.... . ",,, ,.,.,, . II L/(. rcr()rr. t.'itriclin! the fundanrcr,tal .i ,l ; : , .; . Lrir I . . r,ritl rnd ah initio oi no f .lof "ir;.: ,, , ' ', , t,\ ,,il)(i, nanacles his jurisdic,ioi," ,.l ,,]'l ', L,t, ,,', rls rncqp1io., void L,x .1.1. I rr J . l)t'lirt tltttr 11 )r,(i jn .r..cr)r.dalrcc with th. .,,,,,tiii,,, , ' ',.t (()lt,iliil)l\ ()i rr n:grrld 11 lrur ro rltc lrcaring. alteinative Muy b". is a rh s 1rir,,,,,. is: ; ,, ..i,.1 1[rottal (()lt( rrrt rilil rolr o1' ..guarantccs, . post-legitirnatedwhich ai.oir",fI.,.f ,- i,,,,, ,l' ,f'.,',,, ,ttrrcottstitirtionalor.ders. On th,: ,lri,..I ,,,, ,,.1 , ti .r'J . t I ,,r,.lt'r, rr ill l.,c in jeopardl if ,t,l ..,,r.. ,i , ,,r r(, ctlsol)c. rnr alid ord wrderS \'el e t() r)r''r\ii ' rr,.cl lrarrd,rLr.a.r,"j',]
" I it, r ie .r tlrat )ou, l)ta.\ resist pear.crirl :r ..1 rL, . i(i\r -<sup>.)U al.e ttr dchate about whcther.i i: l.r,r r , , r)( t. i| c.l(i ()f goin1l to the authorities ri h ir lr c. r l.'li', nt i .' (tttc (l tte stion.is) not a blou, tbr Iib.r. . i.L; (jtl ill(' ! rll lt-l[-\ . I t lrlorr lhr.atten)ptcd arran Irr.-'
Ilr. ,ri. (- ll. \ jr.\ i. (.\l)r.CSScd b\ rh! (aiit. rri 'lrr' \ rr.r.. .. , l,.lrr ,.' t I ' rr . r r ltl. t r l r r r r , l i, i r i Cilsc i r buf \ het.e Orre ryas helcl ).iCl.br ilt cilI c cl-.I I' L nl(rlr : it t'r i| r ;. tt . r r r I I I , r r.r | -r . IIc cscapcd ltiJ in iJt,., .'. hi:. .t r, t()l lrcir I : ,trc \ ilq ,.rrrrr iclcd but ir: appclt Ll Or rt-itl
9
G.t(', J Crl. l'..\ 0.8088 oJ 20 1 6
i I i i II il ti il iii E *: I E Ij I i I i I it
"An escape is classed as a crime against public justice, and the law, in declaring it to be an offense, proceeds upon tl-re theory that the citizen should f ield obcdience to the law; that when one has been, br its authority or command, confined in a prison, that iL is his duty to subrnit to such confincr.nent uutil ciclivcrcd by due coulse of law. But when thc intprisonmcnt is unlawlirl, and is itself a crime.-l-hc reason w[ricli nrakes flight flom prison an of'fense clocs nor crisr. ln such a case the right to liberty is absolutc. and he- \iho lcgains it is not guilty o1' the technical o1'lcnsc olescape."
Arncrican case-law is conflicting ancl iloubttul expressions tike "void on its lace" "tlanspurcutI1. invalid" have been used. We ruust reutcnrbc-r the rvords of Justice Franklurter "lf oue uriln can bc allowcd to deten.nine lor hirnselt' uhaL is lat. cr.crv nlan can.'l'hat rneans llrst chaos, thcn t-r lannr ". \jc drvcll on tl-rese possible viervs to rrrtr{ersrorc tlre d ifficu lties ol solution."
i(r. On the other hand, the lealned Spccial l)Lrblie I)rosecutor lbr
( ilutl'al llxcise and Customs conlended that tltere ls no cl r'ot or irr-ceularity in the orders of the adjudicatinq uutlrorirr ancl aticr lirll Jledged opportunity, the adjudicating aurhorir\ hus lirLrncl rhar ihe pctitionet has abetted the ollencc itncl as per rlrc rccorcls scizccl ll-onr thc SN,{I'PL, it is evident that the pcriLioncr' ( outpirrtr hls rlso prrrticipatccl ut ttrc o[t-cnce, and thclcfbrc. Lhc tlLrcstrorr ot clLra slr ing
Lire (..(-. u ould not arise
t 'l
t0
(;.1( . .t at l.t" 0.3t)il3 o/:t)t()
ll C)n re usal o[' thc impuqned order. at p-ara 3r).r1. Lhe
allcilatiorrs nr d,: against the petitioner are as under
"ltegar irrq \lis.lndia E.xtrusion (lll in shorl). Lhe r har c pr rrt3sre(l thc Proposal of petialty under tli: satd llrlc r l thcqloLLnd o1' lalse statentont:i l)) tl c I)('1S( ,ll l :l o:-SN{'l l']l-. I lrave already discusscC i::rlli,l. tlr lt ,:r cl)t fbr scel(ine c ross-exatn inatio t, lhe, har e nol lI cl :()Lrt ll1) casc in thcir fln,or'. l l c cir-cLrru: ilrtial c\ iclcucc clcarly poit-rts tou,ar,Jt; hcIr Lhat Llt \ irl c !,ct \ ntr-rch involved in thc n- tdr s Ol)CI'irrl( i adoptccl. The notice has rrougrt out ilr c 1i ta rl(r c\ i(lcncc that the projecte(l job 'voLk lfans IC orr ,r'i[h Ilj. has been a false one and tr:,1 thc .loLr 'rr '1, , cil lra: bccn used for mor,cr,: tr i ol LIlt:le('(r n rclqoorls to and lro betu,e,:n lh: lu o a('ntl'.tr c.. Il it i: to bi.: hcld tl-rat IE can go sco ll.c,r. th.'n t' ,r,Lrlrl iu))oLurl to accepting 1he ploposit.i,trr thrrL S\ 1 I'PI lLlc also clcun and consequently il rrouLd also irt rp lr I ret llrc onttre ericlence brought rtn re<ot d ts ie:sitiet : nci Lhat :lll the statements are Iallacior,is. in ils lt Ll( r u; sourcinq of invoiccs anct liar-clrrlcrrt ltr l i inr. rr ol' .r'.rlii lry S\I'lPt- is linl<crl to t rc: .lolr rr or-1.' t attsactiorts t itlr lE. Since the cvi,.l -.ncc co', cr in Lht t'rrtilL' clrain inclLrdirrg Ili h:Ls rcc ) l)1..)<sup>! (l rr-,r 1,1111 il1ri1lr1. I[: canLrot clailll L 1al llt:' ar:
11
G.1(',.t Crl. l'..'n-8083 ol)0 1 6
I I I I ; I
not part of it. Having regard to this view, I hold that II-. alc ccrtainly par-t ol the whole episodc and thcir' lolc in the lnodus operandi stands proved."
ll. .\clrnittedlv, an appeal is filed against the order-in-original and Lit appellate Court has subsequently passed the firllorvinq ordcl clatecl I 9.03.2019 after filing ol this quash petition
.'-l'hc lindings of the adjudicating autholity indicatc thiit he has relied upon various statetnents o1' thc irrrlir icluals, as also some lccords available in thc llle . llrc larv on Lhe point of reliance to be ltlaccd orr stxtcnrcnts is now well settled by the I{on'blc lJiglr ( oLrrt ol Puniab & Haryana in the casc of .litnlul l)r'trgs Pvt Ltd., Vs UoI [20]6 (340) ELT' 6// nhercin the ir lordships clearly laid down that pro\ isions ol StcLion 9D of the Central Excise Act, 194-1 neetis Lo lrc lbllor.r,ed in its letter and spirit and thq, har c also l:rrtl clou,n the dilections 1'o r the same. In our- r ie rr. l:rrr ncccls to be lollowed as per provisious oi- Scctiorr ()l) Lrl'(lentlal Excise Act, 1944 betbrc corlring to rlrc eonclusion. Accoldingly, we set aside thc irnpullnccl ortle r. rcrnit. the tratter back lo thc ad.jLidicltin:r :rirtlroL'it)' Lo reconsider the issue a(i-esh alie'r lirllorr in!i ilrc larr as laid down by the Hon'ble Fliglt C'oLrrr ol I)Lrnjeh & Haryana. Since the matter is ol 10()6. it
'''; r
t2
(, t(../ ( rt.l,.\rt 3/138 0/ :u()
\cLrlI be dcsir.able tl)al the atl.judiciLring ru thoritl, coi)1f e'cs the denor o Irr.ocoedings r.i,itltin a lreioci o l' tltr', e n,,ntlt\ ii.(,llt lJt. tr.L.(,ll\t ol ll)(, ot.d,.,r..
ll. ()n lrr r.rsal ol. the proposrl ions laid dorvn in tl e j rdgrr ents relied on lx ,he lcarnetl Scrrior (.olinsci fbr. petitionr,r.. it is evide nt lhat ltcrio c ()' lirr itat io n rs not 1_,rcscr.ibed unde_ the Illr,LLrt I an(l tltc St:tLrtor.,r .\ iLlro,.it,r nrusL c\cr(risc its jur.sdrclicr. rviLhin a rca'sollar\lc p rioci rncl :ls rr...r. rlrc pr.oposirion Iaicl cl.ru,r b.,, thc [lon'blc SL pr :ntc ('oLrr.l in Llte :rl,.or c .iLrdgnrcnts. the id ex c r.c isc has lo [rr: (]):cl :i.ie(l iritltrn.r IcIrori of three years haring r,:garcl to thc l)rrrlloll ir t..r.rns ()1. thc .\ct. arrd in any event, .t shculd noL excced frc ( rs. [Jul. :t: |11. 11,- p|oposition Iaid b1 Lhe Madras I ligh ( o,rri ;n ri i jLrci-qntelrl c it.:cl atrove. th,: ordt.r.lt ar't to l)c passcri rr itlti r I rr.,c vcar_s
I.l. ..\ clnr il .( \ tlrc ('l SI \l Lrrcl.,r. q1s passt:d on I ).0.1.20 t9 dircctinq ir., ri iL.di.:ating .rrth()r.jt,\ trr re_considc,t. thr: 11.ir11,,t.,,,_1 pass orclcrs rl Il.( ilr (.(lc lto\ u pr-ocecdinqs) ri.ithin :hree tl )uIrts. It \ as btolrqltt ir tlc n,)Lice ol'rltrs (,(rUt.t titat till datrt, ijo (,t.,.ler.s lta(, [.let'll |11q..'..1 l]ri rr lt tltc orrle r _jtr,trr;tiital tiatccl I I 12l0 0 s scr
l3
C,IC, .) C:rl. P.i\o.8(t88 ol 2016
T -77,
asiclc br(ll:ST'A f. Therefore, it is a fit case to quash rhe l)roceeding.sin thc ('.C
I -. .,\cco lclinel,r . this criurinal petition is allowed and the lrrocccclirrrsin Cl.C.No. l12 of 2016 on the file of Special Judge lor Ire r)norn ie ()flcnccs. Ilyderabad, are hereby quashed. Ihc
rcsi)()n(l.nl is rlrr'..ctc<l to pass order.s alresh in terms ol thc. rlrciers ol( l:S'l .\ l. clltetl 19.03.2019, keeping in mind the tin.re linrit ot'
tlrlor r cur': rrs rr cll as thc rnaximum time limit of Iive years
I)crrtlin!L ntisccllaneous applications, if any, shall stand
e io 'etl
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/- G. SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR L.]D
SECTION OFFICER
To,
Pcqa,
I iiI I i i :
I ta i :l I I I I i1
HIGH COUR Ii
DATED:2210 |12023
ORDER
CRLP.No.80:18 of 2016
.('
,s I
.s
le,
<br>
Allowing the Criminal Petition
,
?a(
(. ).5
"o<br>
3 issues framed by the court
Whether proceedings initiated under the Central Excise Act should be quashed due to non-compliance with limitation and statutory procedures.
Whether the State is required to exercise jurisdiction within a reasonable period considering the absence of a specific limitation period.
Whether a case is fit for quashing where previous appellate orders set aside impugned orders and remanded matters.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab & others v. Bhatinda District Coop. MillRelied on¶72
State of Punjab & others v. Bhatinda District Coop. Mill
Roof & Bath Bathroom Products Pvt LtdRelied on¶79
ioca Bathroom Products Pvt Ltd
Partab Khan Abbaskhali v. The State of GujaratRelied on¶93
Parbhat Khan Abbaskhali v. The State of Gujarat
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s India Extrusion
The Asst., Commissioner (Prosecution), Central Excise and Customs, Hyderabad
G. Anupama Chakravarthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
