Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.22 seconds)
Lakshmi G. Menon vs Union Of India on 18 November, 1997 cites

Oil And Natural Gas Commission vs Collector Of Central Excise on 7 January, 1994

After the giving of the said directions, further clarifications were also sought for in I.A. Nos. 3 and 4 of 1992 and the order of the Supreme Court dated 7-1-1994 is reported in 1994 (70) E.L.T. 45 (Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Central Excise). In the said order the Supreme Court has issued certain clarifications to the effect that the High Power Committee contemplated in the earlier order was only to ensure that no litigation came to the Court without the parties having had an opportunity of conciliation before in-house Committee. It was also clarified that the others would apply even with reference to the pending matters before any Court or Tribunal which should also be the subject matter of the deliberations of the High Power Committee. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the complaint against her being an outcome of a dispute between the Department of Central Excise and the first accused, the directions of the Supreme Court ought to have been complied with. A perusal of the directions of the Supreme Court would make it abundantly clear that the directions could be applied only to civil claims between the Union Government and the various public bodies and disputes arising on policy matters between the said two bodies. In the directions contained in the order dated 11-10-1991, a reference is made to the instructions of the Cabinet Secretariat to all the Departments of the Government of India as well as the Public Sector Undertakings to the effect that all disputes should be resolved amicably by mutual conciliation or through the good offices of the empowered agencies of the Government or through the arbitration and recourse to the litigation should be eliminated. Consideration of the circumstances under which the order of the Supreme Court came to be passed and a perusal of the various directions of the Supreme Court as well as the subsequent clarification issued by the Supreme Court would make it abundantly clear that the disputes contemplated therein would only relate to civil disputes and monetary claims as between the Government and the public bodies as well as policy matters and that by no stretch of imagination can the orders of the Supreme Court have any relevance to the criminal complaints which are filed by virtue of specific penal provisions as in the present case. As stated earlier a perusal of the complaint will show that the accused are sought to be proceeded under the penal provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The allegation against the accused relate to the alleged suppression of accounts and facts resulting in loss of Excise Duty and gross negligence on the part of the second accused as well as the continued evasion of payment of duty which require launching of prosecution. I am inclined to hold that the context in which the directions of the Supreme Court as mentioned above have been made, has nothing to do with the nature of the proceedings now launched against the petitioner herein and hence the observations of the Supreme Court cannot stand in the way of the prosecution being continued.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 128 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next