9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 711X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against petitioner. - W.P.Nos.4252 & 4418 of 2017 & W.M.P.Nos.4404 & 4627 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 5-12-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioners : M/s. D. Naveena For the Respondents : Mr.V.Sundareswaran ORDER Heard M/s.D.Naveena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Since the pleadings are completed, the learned counsel on either side requested the Court to dispose of these writ petitions. 2.The petitioner in W.P.No.4252 of 2017 is M/s.Sri Kamalaganapathy Steel Rolling Mills Ltd., and the petitioner in W.P.No.4418 of 2017 is Mr.C.Saravanan, who is the Director of M/s.Sri Kamalaganapathy Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. Both t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the petitioners submitted that a representation was given on 18.06.2017, requesting for copies of eight documents, which have not been supplied to the petitioners and also the Compact Disc, which was seized from their factory and the computers, which were seized from M/s.V V Iron and Steel Company (P) Ltd. The petitioner received a reply from the Central Excise Commissionerate vide reply dated 13.07.2016, stating that the Compact Discs and Hard Discs were seized from the petitioner's factory by the Directorate General of Central Excise Investigation (DGCEI) and the petitioners were advised to approach them. The petitioners submitted their representation to the DGCEI and a reply was sent on 08.09.2016, stating that the imaged version o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r moved this Hon'ble High Court primarily to stall the adjudication proceedings. All the RUD were provided to the petitioner on 05.05.2016 when the correspondences were in progress amongst the petitioners, the respondents on the score of soft copies of seized Hard discs CD when the hearings were fixed, the petitioner moved these writ petitions before this Hon'ble High Court on untenable and fallacious grounds that the respondents have not complied with the provisions of Section 36B of CEA 1944, in spite of the fact that the provisions of Section 36B are not attracting in this case. 5.The petitioners filed a rejoinder to the counter affidavit and I find from paragraph 12 of the rejoinder that there is no specific denial with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
