M. S. A. Siddiqui, J.

( 1 ) BY this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 1st July, 1998 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, New Delhi rejecting the petition under Section 245 (2) Cr. P. C. , filed by the petitioners.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, facts giving rise to the present petition are that M/s Hi-Tech Carbon Products (Petitioner No. 1) holder of Central Excise Licence No. 2/4809/r-9/mod-11/90 dated 14. 11. 90 are engaged in the manufacture of carbon paper rolls falling under sub-heading no. 4809. 10 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Rules, 1985. On 25. 2. 1991, the officers of the Central Excise (Preventive) Department inspected the factory premises of the petitioners and found that the provisional SSI registration certificate No. 55/55/60-4/sth, dated 8. 11. 1989 granted to the petitioners had expired on 7. 11. 1990 but the petitioners had started production/clearance of goods with effect from 9. 2. 1990 and the total value of the goods manufactured and cleared by them during the financial year 1989-90 and year 1990-91 was Rs. 3,76,761. 00 and Rs. 19,99,477. 10 respectively. According to the respondent, since the petitioner No. 1 was neither in possession of a permanent SSI Registration certificate nor their provisional SSI registration certificate was extended beyond 7. 11. 1990, they were not eligible for the benefit of SSI as per Clause (4) of the notification No. 175/86, dated 1. 3. 1986 as amended. Thus, the petitioners were not eligible for the said benefit under Clause 4 (a) or 4 (b) of the said notification as the total value of their goods exceeded Rs. 7. 5 lacs during the financial year 1990-91 and further that had wrongfully availed of the benefits during the said financial years and thereby contravened the provisions of rule 9 (1), 173-F, 173-G, 174 read with rules 92, 226 and 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules and Section 9-A of the Central Excise and Salt Act. It is alleged that the petitioners had evaded Central Excise Duty to the tune of Rs. 10,08,020. 05 during the financial years 1989-90 and 1990-91. In the adjudication proceedings, the collector, Central Excise Delhi imposed a penalty of Rs. 25000. 00 upon the petitioner No. 1 and demanded a sum of Rs. 10,08,020. 05 as Central Excise Duty. On these allegations, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 9 of the Central Excise and Salt Act against the petitioners. Aggrieved by the order dated 21. 5. 1992 of the Collector, Central Excise, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short the Appellate Tribunal ). By the order dated 26. 9. 1995, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the petitioners appeal and set aside the order dated 21. 5. 1992 passed by the Collector, Central Excise imposing penalty on the petitioners.

( 3 ) AFTER the Appellate Tribunal passed the order allowing the appeal, the petitioners filed a petition before the A. C. M. M. to drop criminal proceedings. The A. C. M. M. by the order dated 1. 7. 1998 dismissed the said application holding that the prosecution has got a right to lead evidence in support of the complaint and the Court can come to the conclusion whether or not any offence is made out. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner have come up before this Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has strenuously urged that the prosecution of the petitioners on the same set of facts and evidence on the basis of which the departmental adjudication proceedings were initiated and finalised resulting in exoneration of the petitioners, is an abuse of the process of law. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in G. L. Diwania vs. Income Tax Officer 1999 (108) E. L. T. 16 (SC) in support of the said contention. Undisputedly, the adjudication proceedings initiated by the Collector, Central Excise against the petitioners have been set aside by the Appellate Tribunal. T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document