9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 711X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rit 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 the writ petitions were filed challenging the show cause notice dated 02.05.2016, issued by the first respondent, which was in pursuant to search and investigation operations conducted in the factory premises of the petitioner. The petitioners have not submitted their objections to the show cause notice, but had approached this Court and filed these writ petitions. At the time, when the writ petitions were heard for admission on 20.03.2017, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectorate 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 of the CDs seized from the petitioners' factory and the hard discs of computers seized from M/s.V V Iron and Steel company were seized under a mahazar and the same have been kept in a sealed condition in the office and hence, the imaged version of the same could not be furnished to the petitioner. In the background of these facts, the petitioners are before this Court. 4.The respondents filed a common counter affidavit in both the writ petitions and the averments in paragraph Nos.21 and 30 of the counter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 regard to the stand taken by the respondents that all the documents have been provided. In fact, there is a vague averment stating that the petitioners re-iterate the fact that the conditions under Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 have not been complied with and the electronic evidence has been handled in a haphazard manner. Therefore, the petitioners have not denied the averment set out by the respondents in the counter affidavit as indicated above, which goes to show that they have been provided with print-o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
