2005 (11) TMI 23 - HC - Central Excise

Summons u/s 14 No evidence to prove that summons were issued merely because the assessee made complaints against the Revenue to Human Rights Commission Summons for investigations cannot be held to be on account of vindictive attitude of revenue Petition dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to summons issued under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for enquiry into ER- for a specific period and appearance in connection with enquiry pertaining to two concerns.

Analysis:
The writ petition challenged the summons issued to a private limited company and its director under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for enquiry into ER- for a specific period. The petitioners contended that despite depositing/reversing the alleged fraudulent claim of CENVAT, the revenue authorities continued to harass them by extending investigations to different locations. The petitioners alleged a vindictive attitude on the part of the revenue authorities, arguing that the investigations were expanded to Mumbai and Ahmedabad solely to harass them. They sought to quash the summons based on these grounds.

The court found the writ petition to be misconceived at the present stage. It noted the absence of material on record supporting the petitioners' claim that the summons were issued due to their complaints against the revenue authorities to the Punjab Human Rights Commission. The court emphasized that the mere issuance of summons for investigations under the Act does not automatically imply vindictiveness on the part of the revenue officials. Without any evidence of arbitrary or capricious exercise of power, the court held that it was not within the scope of judicial review to assume ulterior motives behind the summons. Since no such material was found on record, the court dismissed the writ petition for lacking merit.

As a result of the above findings, the court dismissed the writ petition. The court also directed that the petitioners would only be examined during office hours, and if the statements/investigations remained inconclusive by the end of the day, they would be recorded on the following day. This order was in line with a previous order dated 29-5-2004 passed in a related case.