HRUSHIKESH PANDA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is preferred against the judgment of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, in Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 1983 confirming the order dated 7 5 1983 passed 2(c) C.C. No. 651 of 1976 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Court, Cuttack, convicting the petitioner under Sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(bb) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentencing him on each of the counts to pay a fine of Rs. 200 in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

(2.) THE gist of the prosecution case is that the Central Excise officers detected that the accused firm of M/s. Utkal Equipment and Chemicals Ltd., Madhupatna, Cuttack, manufacturing glass and glass wares, of which the petitioner was the Managing Director, supplied their manufactured goods to business firms at Cuttack and Calcutta under three different bills of different dates (Exts. 2,3 and 4) whereunder the excise duty payable was Rs. 304.07, Rs. 698.80 and Rs. 2,109.80, and though the excise duty was realised from the consignees, the same was not credited to the Central Excise Department and further the necessary gate passes as per the Central Excise Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) were not issued and thus by his illegal conduct, the petitioner rendered himself liable under the provisions of the Act and the Rules.

(3.) THE evidence of P.Ws. 1,4 and 6 discloses that the accused petitioner's firm supplied the goods covered by the bills Exts. 2,3 and 4, to M/s. Bharat Salt and Chemicals, Cuttack and M/s. Everest Glass Emporium, Calcutta, and realised the bill amounts which were inclusive of central excise duty. Under the Act and the Rules, whenever excisable goods are removed from the factory, a gate pass, showing the amount of excise duty paid, must accompany the goods despatched to the consignee. In the instant case, the petitioner firm has not produced the copies of the gate passes said to have been sent along with the bills showing payment of central excise duty. No attempt was made from the side of the defence to produce the gate passes. On a consideration of the evidence of P.Ws. 1,4 and 6, in the light of the non production of the gate passes, both the Courts below have rightly come to the finding that excisable goods had been despatched from the factory without due payment of central excise duty.