E-Paper
Trial stayed against Tata in excise duty evasion
The court has stayed a trial against him for allegedly evading excise duty to the tune of Rs 14.92 crore in 1989, reports Urvi Jappi.
In a relief to Ratan Tata, industrialist and director of Voltas, the Bombay high court has stayed a trial against him for allegedly evading excise duty to the tune of Rs 14.92 crore in 1989.
Central Excise Department had lodged a compliant with a local court against Voltas, Tata, another director N Soonawala and 26 other directors of Voltas for allegedly evading excise duty on room air conditioners.
The complaint was lodged against the company and its directors in March 1989 under Section 120(b) of Indian Penal Code for conspiracy and Section 9(1)(b)(bb) of the Central Excise Commission Act for evading duty.
Justice A.S. Oka recently stayed the trial against Tata and Soonawala after they approached the HC for quashing of the case against them.
In 1986, central excise department had given show cause notice to Voltas which is leading manufacturers in room air conditioners for evasion of excise duty worth Rs 14.92 crore. The Excise Commissioner also upheld the central excise department’s notice demanding payment of Rs 14.92 crore duty.
Voltas approached the Bombay high court in 1986 challenging the notice. High Court too upheld the Excise Commissioner’s order.
However, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the high court, but granted liberty to the excise department to issue fresh show cause notice.
Accordingly, in 1989, the excise department once again issued fresh show cause notice to Voltas demanding Rs 14.92 crore for allegedly evading excise duty. Simultaneously, the excise department also lodged a compliant with a local metropolitan magistrate.
Tata and Soonawala had approached the high court in April challenging the complaint with the metropolitan court seeking that the complaint be quashed and set aside. The application stating that pending the fresh show cause notice the excise department had lodged a compliant with the court which is not allowed, argued their lawyers Amit Desai and Homiar Vakil.
Jitendra Solankni, public prosecutor for the central excise department opposed the application stating that adjudication of the notice and lodging of the complaint are two different things and can proceed simultaneously.
