In Brief
The Supreme Court overturned a High Court decision that quashed criminal proceedings for excise duty evasion merely because a procedural rule (Rule 56A) had been omitted without a saving clause. The Court held that the omission of a procedural rule governing credit availment does not affect the substantive charge of excise duty evasion, which remains an independent offence. The prosecution's right to prove evasion cannot be defeated by procedural changes. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the trial court's charge was restored.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.