Page 92 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

314 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

relevant in the context of the first Explanation to Rule 6(3) of the 2004 Rules that
ought to have guided the adjudicating authority while passing the order of adju-
dication. In failing to see the ratio in the judgment in Unison Metals Limited in the
context of a provision that the adjudicating authority failed to notice, there is a
jurisdictional error on the part of such authority.
17. Since such jurisdictional error was amenable to correction within
the scope of judicial review exercised in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Ar-
ticle 226 of the Constitution, there was no impediment to receiving the petition or
adjudicating on such aspect notwithstanding the appeal from the order of the
adjudicating authority not being entertained on the ground of limitation or the
resultant appeal being withdrawn since the Commissioner (Appeals) had only
acted within the bounds of his authority.
18. For the reasons as aforesaid, the order of the adjudicating authority
of May 7, 2008 is set aside and it is recorded that the excise claim stands satisfied
upon the CENVAT credit of equivalent amount having been debited from the
CENVAT credit account of the appellant. As a consequence, since the excise duty
realised by the appellant from the purchasers of the appellant’s goods would be
deemed to have been paid to the excise authorities upon the CENVAT credit ac-
count of the appellant being debited, there is no question of the appellant being
liable to pay any penalty or interest. The entirety of the order dated May 7, 2008
stands set aside.
19. APO No. 391 of 2017 and GA No. 2872 of 2017 are disposed of by
setting aside the judgment and order impugned dated March 6, 2017 and allow-
ing W.P. No. 681 of 2014 as above.
20. There will be no order as to costs.
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 314 (Guj.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R.P. Dholaria, J.
SUNIL PURSHOTTAM MOHATTA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 13841 of 2012 with R/Criminal Misc.
Application No. 14654 of 2012, decided on 26-2-2020
Police and Violation of Customs Act, 1962 - First Information Report
(F.I.R.) - Quashing of - Search & seizure undertaken by Customs Department
and proceedings initiated under Section 72 of Customs Act, 1962 - Customs
officials quite vigilant in supervising and controlling the affairs of import and
export of liquor by licensee and in case any infirmity found in maintaining the
record, order of confiscation passed for the very act which has been alleged by
the police - Impugned F.I.R.s and other consequent proceedings arising out of
the same quashed, there being no iota of evidence or material to prosecute the
present applicants in connection with them impugned F.I.R. [paras 8.9]
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  92