Criminal Misc. Application (For Anticipatory Bail) No. 9811 of 2016. Case: Rajesh Ramjibhai Kundariya Vs State of Gujarat. Gujarat High Court CEGAT & CESTAT Cases
| Case Number | Criminal Misc. Application (For Anticipatory Bail) No. 9811 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri Deven Parikh, SC with Chetan K. Pandya, Advocate and For Respondents: Shri Hriday Buch, Advocate and Rutvij Oza, Add. Public Prosecutor, Adv. |
| Judges | Sonia Gokani, J. |
| Issue | Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 9; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 |
| Citation | 2016 (339) ELT 361 (Guj.) |
| Judgement Date | May 05, 2016 |
| Court | Gujarat High Court CEGAT & CESTAT Cases |
Order:
-
The formal service of notice of Rule is waived by the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondent. The Rule is fixed forthwith on consent.
-
By way of present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants have prayed for enlarging them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with File No. DGCEI/AZU/12(4)144/2015-16, registered with Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad.
-
On March 15, 2016, as per the submission of the applicants, the officers of the respondent No. 2 entered the factory premises and conducted search under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). Even at the residence of the applicant No. 1, the search was carried out and the panchnama to that effect was drawn. A spot summons came to be issued on March 16, 2016 under Section 14 of the Act upon the applicant No. 2 and the spot summons were also issued upon some of the officers of the Company to remain present. A request was made by the applicants to differ the proceedings. It is the say of the applicants that their company is one of the top twenty companies of Wankaner and is complying with all the provisions of law, including the provisions of the Act. The company is in the production of ceramic tiles. Wherever any product requires showing maximum retail price under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 or Rules framed thereunder, the Excise duty is to be paid under Section 4A of the Act. The retail sale price is also to be determined in accordance with the Rules. If any manufacturer removes the goods at the price other than the retail sale price or otherwise, then the Excise duty is to be ascertained as provided under sub-Rule (I) and (II) of Rule 4 of the Central Excise (Determination of Retail Sale Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules'').
-
It is the case of the applicants that neither the company has sold the tiles at the price higher than the Maximum Retail Price nor has received any cash from the dealer towards the sale price of the tiles. Thus, in absence of any receipt of difference of Maximum Retail Price and the product sold at more than the Maximum Retail Price, no case could be made out against the applicants.
-
According to the applicants, the offence punishable under Section 9 of the Act is cognizable, non-bailable and punishable with imprisonment for a term which may...
To continue reading
Request your trial