Case Details: Sree Aravind Steels Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner, GST and Central Excise-I, Tiruchirappalli (2025) 36 Centax 59 (Mad.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- L. Victoria Gowri, J.
- Shri S. Murugappan for S. Chandrasekar, for the Petitioner.
- Shri N. Dilip Kumar, Standing Counsel, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner filed a criminal revision petition challenging the order of the Magistrate under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was submitted that the original adjudication order had been quashed by the CESTAT. Fresh show cause notices were issued and a new adjudication order imposed liability only on Accused No. 1, whereas the earlier adjudication order had fixed joint and several liability on both Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2. It was contended that the 2023 adjudication order was never placed before the sanctioning authority and its introduction without fresh sanction would prejudice the prosecution. The matter was placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the quashing of the earlier adjudication order by the CESTAT had effaced the substratum of the sanction granted in 2006, and therefore, any subsequent adjudication order could not be relied upon in the ongoing prosecution without obtaining fresh sanction. It was held that under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, admissibility of a document is not equivalent to relevancy. The Court ruled that in the absence of fresh sanction, the 2023 adjudication order could not be used in the ongoing prosecution. The criminal revision was allowed in favour of the petitioner.
List of Cases Cited
- Assistant Collector v. L.R. Malwani — 1999 (110) E.L.T. 317 (S.C.) — Relied on [Paras 4, 6.3, 10.1, 10.1]
- Assistant Commissioner v. Athishtarajan — 2017 (352) E.L.T. 333 (Mad.) — Relied on [Paras 6.4, 10.1]
- C. Ramesh v. State of Karnataka — 2025 SCC Online Kar 207 — Referred [Para 7.7]
- Commissioner v. CESTAT — 2021 (376) E.L.T. 438 (Mad.) — Referred [Paras 6.2, 7.2]
- Panchamahal Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner — 2017 (346) E.L.T. 539 (Kar.) — Referred [Paras 7.5, 7.5]
- Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal — 2011 (266) E.L.T. 294 (S.C.) — Distinguished [Para 10.4]
- Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. v. Union of India — (2025) 32 Centax 465 (S.C.) — Distinguished [Paras 7.6, 7.5, 10.4]
- Sree Aravindh Steels Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2007 (216) E.L.T. 332 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 6.2]
- State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma — MANU/SC/542/1992 — Relied on [Paras 6.4, 10.2]
List of Departmental Clarification Cited
- C.B.I. & C. Circular No. 15/90-CX. 6, dated 9-8-1990 [Paras 6.4, 10.1]
- C.B.I. & C. Letter F. No. 208/21/2007-CX. 6, dated 15-6-2007 [Para 10.1]
