CHANDPAKLAL RAMANLAL SHAH AND ANR. versus RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.

Citation: [2017] 14 S.C.R. 554 · Decided: 12-09-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ADARSH KUMAR GOEL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 14 S.C.R. 554 
A 
CHANDPAKLAL RAMANLAL SHAH AND ANR. 
B 
v. 
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1045of2017) 
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017 
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LA LIT, J.J.J 
Central Excise Rules. 1944 - n: 56A. 52A. 173G. 9(2) and 
173 (Q)- Central Excises and Salt Act. 1944-ss.9.11-A - Complaint 
C filed by the appellant alleging the commission of offence u/s.9 of 
the Act rlw. n: 52A. 56A. 173G and 173(Q) rlw. s.Il-A of the Act-
Late1; d6A was omitted by a notification - On that basis. re~pondent 
.filed an application for discharge. hut the same was rejected and 
charge was framed by the trial Court - Re.1pondent moved the High 
Court by way of a revision petition - High Court held that since 
D r.56A was omitted without prescribing any saving clause. 
proceedings could not conti1111e u11d quashed the charge framed by 
the trial Court - On appeal, held: The chmge against the re~pondent 
is of evasion of duty - The ingredient of the offence is the evasion -
The omission of a procedural rule for availing the credit cannot in 
any manner affect the said charge - The prosecution cannot be 
E 
F 
G 
H 
deprived of opportunity to prove evasion which by itself is an 
offence - In this view of the matte1; there was no justification for 
the High Court to quash the charge merely on the ground of 1:56A 
having been omitted - Order of trial Court restored - General 
Clauses Act. 1897 - s.6 - Finance Act. 2001 - Explanation to s.132. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The charge against the respondent is of evasion 
of duty. The ingredient of the offence is the evasion. The omission 
of a procedural rule for availing the credit cannot in any manner 
affect the said charge. The prosecution cannot be deprived of 
opportunity to prove evasion which by itself is an offence. ln this 
view of the matter, there was no justification for the High Court 
to quash the charge merely on the ground of Ruic 56A of the 
Central Excise Rules, 1944 having been omitted. [Para 6] [557-
E-F] 
554 
CHANDPAKLAL RAMANLAL SHAH AND ANR. v. RELIANCE 
555 
INDUSTRIES LTD. 
Raya/a Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Director of Enforcement, 
New Delhi (1969) 2 SCC 412 : (1970] · 1 SCR 639; 
Kohlapur .Cane Sugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India 
. (2000) 2 SCC 536 : 12000] 1 SCR 518; Fibre Board~ 
Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 
Bangalore (2015) 10 SCC 333 : [2015] 8 SCR 906; 
Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills versus Commissioner 
of Central Excise (2016) 3 SCC 643 : (2015] 
12 SCR 332; Simholi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India 
2006 (205) ELT 141; Reliance Industries Ltd. v. CCE 
1995 (75) ELT 77 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
[1970] 1 SCR 639 
referred to 
Para3 
' 
12000] 1 SCR 518 
referred to 
Para3 
(2015] 8 SCR 906 
referred to 
Para4 
12015] l2 SCR 332 
referred to 
Para4 
2006 (205) ELT 141 · 
.referred to 
Para4 
1995 (75) ELT 77 
referred to 
Para4 
A 
B 
c 
D 
CRIMJNALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CriminalAppeal No. 
E 
1045 of2017. 
· 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17. l 0.2015 of the High Court 
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision No. 192 of2014 . 
. Ranjit Kumar, SG, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv., Rupesh 
Kumar, Ritesh Kumar, Ms. Disha Yaish and B. Krishna Prasad, Advs., 
F 
for the Appellants. 
Sh yam Divan, Sr. Adv., Jaydeep Patel; K. R. Sasiprabhu, Ashwin 
Dave, Ms. Shilpa Balani, Vishnu Sharma, Udayaditya Banerjee, Somiran 
Sharma and Biju Raman, Advs., for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. l. This appeal has been 
preferred against the Order dated 17"' October, 2015 of the High Court 
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No.192 of 
2014. Thereby, the High Court set aside the order of the trial court 
. dated 22"" March, 2013 and discharged the respondent in Criminal Case 
H 
556 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 
A No.441 of 1987 under Section 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 
1944 (the Act)read with Rules 52A, 56A, 173G, 9(2) and 173(Q) of the 
Central Excise Rules, 1944 (the Rules) read with Section 11-A of the 
Act. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
2. Complaint dated 4'h August, 1987 was filed by the appellant in 
his capacity as Superintendent, Central Excise, Group-II, Central Excise 
Collectorate, Hqrs. Jivabha Mens ion, Ahmedabad alleging commission 
of offence mentioned in the complaint. The trial Magistrate summoned 
the accused. On 20'h May, 1994, Rule 56A was omitted by a notification. 
On that basis, the re
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.