2021-TIOL-1140-HC-MP-NDPS

Adnan Khan Vs State of MP

NDPS - Applicants seek bail in the Criminal case for offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 22 and Section 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

Held: It is apparent that applicant-Dheeraj was arrested on 7.12.2020 along with 20 grams of MDMA narcotic drugs (the commercial quantity of which is more than 10 grams) when he was sitting in an XUV along with co-accused Sohan @ Jojo, who was driving the vehicle - It is also found that so far as applicant-Adnan Khan is concerned, his name is mentioned by applicant Dheeraj in his memo prepared under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and so far as applicant Abdul Hannan Khan is concerned, his name is mentioned by the applicant Adnan Khan in his memo prepared under Section 27 of the Evidence Act - The case diary also reveals that there have been a number of bank transactions between applicant-Adnan Khan and applicant-Abdul Hannan Khan and that is not all, from the account of applicant- Hannan Khan certain amounts have also been credited in the account of the applicant-Dheeraj - Apart from that, there is equally bulky WhatsApp chatting record of the applicants which prima facie indicates their nexus with in committing the offence under the NDPS Act - However, considering the fact that due to the fresh spread of COVID-19, since the trial courts have also stopped working and it appears that the said situation would last longer than expected, Court finds it expedient at present to allow the present bail application for a temporary period of six months - Accordingly, the application is allowed partially and the applicants are released on bail [temporarily only for a period of six months on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount and with an undertaking that after the expiry of six months from the date of their release, they shall surrender before the trial court] for a period of six months from the date of their release - Bail applications stand partially allowed: High Court [para 12, 13, 15 to 17]

- Applications allowed: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1139-HC-TRIPURA-CX

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - s.3A of the CEA, 1944 - Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 - Assessee was liable to pay excise duty on the installed capacity of manufacture instead of actual manufacture and clearance of goods - Abatement claimed on account of closure of production at the unit for continuous period - Claim for abatement for the period between 1st October 2015 to 7th October 2015, was rejected by the Commissioner(A) on the ground that "the machine was not un-installed and sealed in such a manner that it cannot be operated as evident from the sealing order dated 31st August, 2015" - appeal against this order was also dismissed by CESTAT, hence the present appeal.

Held: It was the duty of the Excise Superintendent to seal the machine and record it in the order that it was so sealed that it cannot be operated - In what manner the Superintendent passing an order after sealing the machine was not within the control of the assessee - Further, this machine was subsequently de-sealed at the request of the assessee, at which point there was no allegation that the seal was broken or that despite the seal, the manufacturing activity was continued - The very purpose of sealing a machine is to keep it out of use and to render it inoperative - When the Superintendent of Central Excise thus sealed the machine and also passed an order to this effect, the presumption would arise that such sealing was in such a manner as that the same cannot be operated - In absence of any allegations by the department and any material on record suggesting that despite sealing, the assessee operated the machine, it would not be permissible to withhold the abatement of duty only on the ground that the Superintendent of Central Excise did not draw proper proceedings and did not elaborately record that the sealing was done in such a manner that the machine could not be operated - Question of law is answered in favour of the assessee - Appeals are allowed by directing the department to give the benefit of abatement for the periods in question - Judgment of the Tribunal is reversed: High Court [para 15, 16]

- Appeal allowed: TRIPURA HIGH COURT