2017 (12) TMI 711 - HC - Central Excise

Writ of mandamus - Section 36(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - this Court is fully convinced that the stand taken by the petitioners is only to stall the adjudication proceedings under the guise that the petitioners have not been provided with the documents - there is absolutely no basis for issuing any direction to the authorities to provide any further documents or copies of the compact discs. Thus, the restricted prayer sought for by the petitioners is not maintainable - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenging show cause notice under Central Excise Act, 1944; Relief sought for issuance of mandamus to furnish materials; Failure to provide requested documents; Allegation of stalling adjudication proceedings.

Analysis:

Challenging show cause notice under Central Excise Act, 1944:
The petitioners, a steel rolling mills company and its director, filed writ petitions challenging a show cause notice issued by the first respondent following search and investigation operations at the factory premises. The petitioners did not submit objections but approached the court seeking relief under Section 36(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court directed a counter affidavit to be filed and noted the petitioners' intention to confine the relief sought to mandamus for furnishing materials.

Relief sought for issuance of mandamus to furnish materials:
The petitioners requested copies of specific documents and electronic storage devices seized during the investigation. Despite representations and replies, the authorities informed that the materials were seized under mahazar and could not be provided in the imaged version. The petitioners contended that the materials sought were crucial for their case and approached the court for relief.

Failure to provide requested documents:
The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that relevant documents and data had been provided to the petitioners, including print-outs of seized CDs and relevant portions from hard discs of other units. The respondents alleged that the petitioners' move to court was to stall adjudication proceedings, emphasizing that all necessary documents had been provided. The petitioners' rejoinder did not specifically deny the respondents' claims, indicating that the documents had indeed been furnished.

Allegation of stalling adjudication proceedings:
The court noted that the petitioners' stance appeared to be an attempt to stall the adjudication proceedings by claiming non-receipt of documents. It found no basis to issue directions for further document provision, as the petitioners had not refuted the respondents' assertions of providing necessary materials. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petitions, directing the petitioners to respond to the show cause notice within thirty days.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petitions as the petitioners' claim of non-receipt of documents was unsubstantiated, and they were directed to reply to the show cause notice within a specified timeframe.