ZAIN REFRATEK PVT. LTD. Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the records.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued before this Court that the cognizance taken against the accused persons 1 to 3 under section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is bad in law, because Section 83 of the Finance Act and 14 of the Central Excise Act are only procedural provisions and not the penal provisions.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Mangaluru Court has no jurisdiction, because the transactions have been taken place at Hyderabad and these aspects have not been considered by the trial Court.