ASST COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISES THEN ASST COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE HEAD QUARTERS PREVENTIVE UNIT CENTRAL EXCISE HOUSE 121 NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD MADRAS Vs. BEAUTY DYERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED over the acquittal of the accused for various offences under the Central Excise Act, 1944, (relating to different periods), the Department " Central Excise has preferred these appeals.

(2.) POINTS arising for determination in all the four appeals are one and the same. Hence, all the appeals were taken up and heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) AGGRIEVED over the acquittal, the Department has preferred these appeals. The learned counsel for the Central Excise Mr.P.N.Prakash has drawn the attention of the Court to Rule 207 which enables the Inspector of the Central Excise to file a complaint. It is contended that in view of Rule 207 and Section 4 of the Crl.P.C, the specific delegation of powers is not essential to file the complaint. The main point of attack is that Section 4(2) Crl.P.C adumbrates that other laws would be the guiding factor for filing the complaints under other enactments and the trial Court grossly erred in invoking Section 37-A and finding that the complaint is not maintainable. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied upon Tonesta Electronics v. Asstt. Collector of C. Excise, Bangalore , 1995 (75) ELT 456 (Kar). On the factual aspects, the learned counsel submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was not properly appreciated by the trial Court.