2005 (12) TMI 43 - HC - Central Excise

Issuing summons by calling for details which were already in possession of dept(which dept. have seized under panchnama) held that no further summons can be issued in relation to same subject matter unless there is any specific evidence with dept. to do so dept shall pay the costs to petitioner

Summary

Issues:
- Validity of summons issued under Central Excise Act, 1944
- Allegations of harassment and maltreatment by respondent No.3
- Seizure of documents and subsequent summons to partners of petitioner firm
- Compliance with summons and possession of relevant documents by respondent department

Analysis:

The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sought various reliefs, including quashing of summons issued by respondent No.3 under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondent's case involved allegations of a manufacturer clearing goods without paying excise duty, leading to a search of petitioner's premises and seizure of documents. The summons issued to partners of the petitioner firm requested statements and documents related to sales, purchases, and financial transactions. Despite repeated summons and submissions, the respondent failed to justify the necessity for additional information already in their possession post-seizure.

The Court examined the seized documents/accounts and found that all details sought through the summons were already available with the respondent department. The Court criticized the respondent's lack of understanding regarding basic accounting principles, emphasizing that the petitioner had no obligation to provide further information beyond what was seized. The Court concluded that the summons and subsequent actions amounted to harassment and abuse of power by respondent No.3, leading to the petition being allowed and the rule made absolute.

Furthermore, the Court directed that the petitioner should not be issued any more summons on the same subject matter unless the respondent department obtains specific evidence necessitating the partners' presence. Additionally, exemplary costs of Rs.10,000 were imposed on respondent No.3, to be paid by the department to the petitioner within a fortnight. A request to stay the judgment's operation was rejected based on the facts of the case, thereby concluding the legal proceedings.

This judgment highlights the importance of respecting legal procedures, avoiding unnecessary harassment, and ensuring that authorities act within the bounds of the law while conducting investigations and issuing summons under relevant statutes.