SRI JAGDISH NARAIN SAPRU Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.11.2004 by which the learned Special Judge, Economic Offences, Patna has refused the application for discharge under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offences allegedly to have been committed under Section 9 (1) (b) (c) (d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (earlier known as Central Excise and Salt Act).

(2.) THE Director General, Investigation vide order no. 01 of 1986 held that assessable value of cigarettes have to be determined in accordance with rule 5 of the Central Excise Act and thereafter raised a demand of Rs. 1,12,76,000/- M/s Indian Tobacco Company Limited then on 25.07.1986 paid the said amount. Thereafter, several attempts were raised which kept mounting up and were finally held to be Rs. 9,41,86,883.29/-. Out of the entire Rs. 9 crores and odd, Rs. 1,12,76,000/- was shown to be paid by the company and the rest was shown to be due. The petitioner challenged the demand raised on behalf of Central Excise Department by filing CWJC No. 1713 of 1990. In this writ application, the High Court allowed the petitioner's prayer to the extent that the respondents were asked to issue a show cause to the petitioner to determine whether the additional amount of excise duty charged for the relevant period was justified or not. The Central Excise Department moved before the Supreme Court and by that time, the matter can be taken. The proceedings then initiated, show cause was issued to the petitioner and they had appeared and file their claims. The matter was decided against the petitioners. They filed an appeal under Section 35 A of the Central Excise Act and finally in the appeal, the Commissioner, Central Excise, Patna came to the following conclusion.

(3.) ONCE, the authority, who is competent to raise a demand, comes to a conclusion that there has been a miscalculation by the authority or that the excise duty to the tune of Rs. 8,29,10,883.29/- is not chargeable and the entire payment has been dropped, it cannot be said that the petitioner would be charged with the criminal intention of deliberate withholding the payment of excise duty to the Union of India.