HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.5410 of 2009 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings in CC No.141 of 2008 on the file of the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent. 3. The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Sunrise International, engaged in the manufacture of ‘Ready-made garments’. The petitioner secured warehousing licence No.2 of 2000 from the Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad and also executed a B-17 bond for Rs.2.60 crores with the Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise for procurement of raw materials duty free and to utilize the same for manufacture of final goods and to export. According to the respondent, the petitioner imported polyester dyed fabric without payment of import duty and also procured certain consignments of polyester dyed/printed fabric from indigenous units without payment of duty but did not utilize the raw materials for the purpose of manufacture of ready-made garments and cleared the said duty free material from the bonded premises clandestinely without payment of duty. The Central Excise officials visited the factory premises of the petitioner on 12.11.2003 and found that the bonded premises was under lock and no manufacturing activity was going on and there was no stock of finished goods and raw materials. The investigation reveal that the petitioner was issued 11 procurement certificates by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise for procurement of imported polyester dyed fabrics without payment of duty and several consignments were imported from Bombay Port without payment of duty and 209005 yards of polyester fabric from M/s Dhanalaxmi Garments, Surat and M/s Sapna Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Kottur under cover of AR3As without payment of duty and the petitioner have secured 197853 yards of knitted fabrics another EOU, which was duly warehoused. 4. During the course of investigation, the statement of the petitioner was recorded and a show cause notice dated 01.08.2005 was issued to the petitioner as to why an amount of Rs.20,19,584/- involved with interest thereon should not be recovered and penalty equivalent to the amount of duty should not be imposed. The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, adjudicated the case and confirmed duty demand of Rs.20,19,584/- along with interest under section 11-AB and also imposed penalty of Rs.20,19,548/- under section 112 of the Customs Act 1962. No appeal was preferred by the accused and the above orders have become final. The accused has thus violated the provisions of the Customs Act and terms and conditions of B-17 bond under Section 72 of the Customs Act, which is punishable under section 9 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Central Board of Excise and Customs has issued proceedings dated 12.12.1997 where under earlier circulars were modified so as to enhance the mandatory limit for launching prosecution up to Rs.25 lakhs and the said circulars are binding on the authorities and therefore, the prosecution is not sustainable, as the amount involved is only around Rs.20 lakhs. In that connection, he relied upon the decision of the apex Court in ‘Collector of Central Excise v. Dhiren Chemical Industries[1]’ wherein it was held that ‘if there are circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, which place a different interpretation upon the said phrase, that interpretation will be binding upon the Revenue’. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent invited attention to the decision of this Court in ‘Parsin Chemicals Ltd. V. Assistant Commissioner (Legal) Customs & Central Excise[2]’, wherein this Court held as follows: “It is for the Court to decide as to whether there is any contravention as alleged by the respondent-complainant. In my considered opinion, even if the prosecution is launched by an authority contrary to the circulars issued by the Board, the prosecution itself is not liable to be quashed. In an appropriate case, may be it shall be open to the authorities concerned to proceed against such officers for violating the circulars or policy decisions so taken by the Board. But once the Court of competent criminal jurisdiction takes cognizance of the complaint, the same cannot be quashed by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C on the ground that the prosecution has been launched by an officer ignoring the circulars/instructions/guidelines issued by the superior officers or the Board of Central Excise and Customs, as the case may be. It is well settled that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C normally does not interfere and exercise its power to quash the very complaint. Interference by this Court is only in rarest of rare cases. In the normal circumstances, the proceedings must be allowed to go on culminating in the verdict by the competent Court of jurisdiction. This Court interferes only to prevent manifest abuse of judicial process which may result in manifest injustice.” 7. In the above decision also, circular dated 12.12.1997 is referred to and it was held that ‘the guideline enshrined in the circular 09.08.1990 was not altered by the subsequent circular dated 12.12.1997, as per which in the case of habitual offenders, the total amount of duty involved in various offences may be taken into account while deciding whether prosecution is called for’. 8. The question as to whether or not the petitioner was a habitual offender and whether or not they have been systematically engaged in evasion over a period of time by the petitioner is a matter to be considered on evidence. Even otherwise, the amount of Rs.20,19,584/- represents only the principal and interest is also to be paid thereon and is covered by the demand notice and the total amount, it is stated, exceeds the limit of Rs.25 lakhs as mentioned in the circular dated 12.12.1997. It is open to the petitioner to raise all defences including the exemption claimed under the circular dated 12.12.1997, during the course of trial. However, having regard to the nature of the offences alleged, being an economic offence, involving grave financial implications to the exchequer, it is considered not a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash further proceedings. 9. It is well settled, as held in the ‘Parsin Chemicals’ case (2nd supra), the provisions under section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked normally and interference was called for only to prevent manifest abuse of judicial process which may result in manifest injustice. The case on hand does not fall within the category of such case and therefore, quashing of further proceedings by invoking inherent powers of the Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. is not at all called for. 10. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 15.12.2011 bss [1] (2002) 2 SCC 127 [2] 2002(1) ALD (Crl.) 212 (AP)