THE ASST. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS (LEGAL) MADURAI PREVENTIVE GROUP OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOVILPATTI Vs. V. MURUGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai in C.C. No. 89/1986 for the alleged offence under Section 9(1)(bb)(ii) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, read with Rule 64 of the Central Excise Rules.

(2.) THE Appellant was the licensee for running M/s. Annai Valliammai Match Works, situated in Pandavarmangalam, Kovilpatti for the manufacture of the match boxes. P.W.3 on 16.6.1984 was working as Inspector of Central Excise in Bharathi Nagar Range at Kovilpatti. On that date 50 bundles of Card Board match boxes were consigned from M/s. Annai Valliammai Match Works to Deluxe Match Company situated in the same town. The bundles had two brand names viz. Sharp Brand of 25 bundles with Numbers 1301 to 1325 and Janatha Brand 25 bundles having the Numbers 1326 to 1350. P.W.3 gave the clearance for consigning these bundles by issuing the Gate Pass No. 25 marked as Ex.P.1. This Gate Pass was signed by the accused/Respondent also. These bundles were delivered in the premises of Deluxe Match Company for which one Narayanan was the Company Manager. P.W.1 the Superintendent of Preventive Group of the Central Excise Department inspected the premises of Deluxe Match company on 19.6.1984 and the 50 bundles despatched from M/s. Annai Valliammai Match Works were inspected. When they inspected the Serial No. 1311 contained in the Sharp Brand bundle, they found the Central Excise Stamp on the bundle suspicious. Therefore, they thoroughly checked the bundles containing the Serial Nos. 1313 to 1319. They were satisfied that the Central Excise Stamps on the bundle Rolls were counterfeited, but in the other bundles of Janatha Brand, no such malpractice was found. However, they seized all the 50 bundles and from the bundles containing the serial Nos. 1311, 1313 and 1319, sixteen match boxes were taken out and they were packed into four bundles. The signature of the Manager of the Deluxe Match Company also was obtained on the packets. Out of the four bundles, one bundle was handed over to Mr. Narayanan, the Manager of the Deluxe Match Company and the other three bundles together with the rest of the match box bundles of Sharp Brand and Janatha Brand were taken to their office. M.O.1 series is of the 12 match boxes seized out of the 40 match boxes. The statement Ex.P.2 was also obtained to this effect from the Manager of the Company viz. Deluxe Match Company. Ex.P.3 is the seizure mahazar for the entire 50 bundles from the said company. These seized match boxes were sent to Nasik for forensic examination and the report Ex.P.5 was received which reads that the Central Excise Stamp on the match boxes containing the Sharp Brand were counter -feited. P.W.2 the Superintendent of Preventive Group of Central Excise Stamp on the match boxes department, examined the accused Respondent on 17.9.1984 and he gave his statement Ex.P.4. As the report of the Forensic Laboratory was to the effect that the stamps were counterfeited, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise issued a show cause notice under Ex.P.6 for the adjudication proceedings. Ex.P.7 is the order of the Assistant Collector in the adjudication proceedings. As the bundles of the match boxes were despatched from the premises of the Annai Valliammai Match Works to Deluxe Match Company with the Central Excise stamps which were counterfeited for the purpose of evading the excise duty, it was violation under Rule 64 of the Central Excise Rules and therefore, this Respondent/accused was prosecuted under Section 9(1)(bb)(ii) of the Central Excise and Salt Act.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant Mr. Prakash would contend that the lower Court was misled by the adjudication proceedings under Ex.P.7 which has nothing to do with the prosecution of the Respondent/accused for the offence under Section 9(1)(bb)(ii) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, as this penal Section is for the violation of Rule 64 of the Central Excise Rules, which is more or less civil in nature, imposing the vicarious liability upon the Respondent the licence holder of the factory and therefore, the findings of the Court below is a clear error of law which has to be set aside.