Dismissed

M/s.Sri Kamalaganapathy v. The Additional Director

Madras HC5 Dec 2017WP/4252/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging a show cause notice were dismissed. The Court found the petitioners' claim of non-compliance under Section 36(b) of the Central Excise Act unsubstantiated, ruling their approach was an attempt to stall proceedings, and ordered them to file replies within thirty days.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to file reply to the show cause notice within 30 days. No costs.

M/s.Sri Kamalaganapathy Vs The Additional Director — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.12.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.Nos.4252 & 4418 of 2017 & W.M.P.Nos.4404 & 4627 of 2017

¶6

M/s.Sri Kamalaganapathy Steel Rolling Mills Ltd., rep by C.Saravanan, Director, 273/2-Irukkur Village, Kabilarmalai, Namakkal-637 202. ... Petitioner in W.P.No.4252/2017 C.Saravanan ... Petitioner in W.P.No.4418/2017 Vs. 1.The Additional Director General, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zonal Unit, C-3, C-Wing, II Floor, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai-600 090. 2.The Commissioner of Central Excise, No.1, Foulks Compound, Anai Road, Salem-636 001. ... Respondents in both W.Ps. Common Prayer : Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent in SCN No.051/2016 dated 02.05.2016 and quash the same. For Petitioners : M/s.D.Naveena For Respondents : Mr.V.Sundareswaran, Senior Standing Counsel

¶7

****** C O M M O N O R D E R

¶8

Heard M/s.D.Naveena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned Senior Standing

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

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.

¶11

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 that the petitioners would confine the relief only for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to furnish the materials sought for by the petitioners in compliance with Section 36(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court recorded the said submission and directed counter affidavit to be filed and passed the following order:

¶12

“Mr.Satish Parasuram, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the Writ Petition is filed against the show cause notice, the petitioner would confine the relief only for issuance of mandamus directing the respondents to furnish the materials sought for by the petitioner is compliance with Section 36(b) of the Central Excise Act.

¶13

The learned counsel for the respondents is directed to file counter affidavit. The learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the respondents will not proceed with the impugned show cause notice for a period of two weeks.

¶14

Post after two weeks.”

¶15

3.The learned counsel for 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

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

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 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.

¶18

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 affidavit would be relevant, which are as hereunder:

¶19

“21.In so far as averment in para 14(a) is concerned, Print-outs of CD seized on 07.03.2012 were taken both on 07.03.2012 and 12.03.2012 under mahazar proceedings. They were provided to the notices along with SCN. As regards data taken from the hard-discs of other units which were certified by the person in-charge of the said affairs, copies of the relevant portions concerned with the transactions of the petitioners herein were also provided to the noticees along with SCN. The hard-discs seized from others' premises contain not only the details of M/s.SKSRM, but also the details of their transactions. Parting away those details will be detrimental to the business interest of those concerned firms. Hence, only hard copies of the relevant portion concerned with the petitioner herein were provided to them.

¶20

30.The respondents most respectfully state that it appears that the petitioner 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

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

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.

¶23

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 reiterate 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-outs of CDs seized on 07.03.2012, and with regard to the data taken from the hard-discs of other units, which were certified by the person in-charge, copies of the relevant portions concerned with the transactions by the petitioners herein have already been provided and the hard-discs seized from others premises contain not only the details of M/s.SKSRM, but also the details of other transactions and therefore, parting away with those details will be detrimental to the business interest of those concerned firms. Further, it has been stated that all the relied upon documents were provided to the petitioners on 05.05.2016, and when the correspondences were in progress, the present writ petitions have been filed.

¶24

6.Thus, 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. Thus, I find that 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.

¶25

7.For the above reasons, these writ petitions are dismissed and the petitioners are directed to file their reply to the impugned show cause notice within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶26

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶27

//True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

abr

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

¶32

1.The Additional Director General, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zonal Unit, C-3, C-Wing, II Floor, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai-600 090.

¶33

2.The Commissioner of Central Excise, No.1, Foulks Compound, Anai Road, Salem-636 001. +2cc to Mr.S.Durairaj, Advocate, S.R.No.86567 & 86568 +1cc to Mr.V.Sundareswaran, Advocate, S.R.No.86979 W.P.Nos.4252 & 4418 of 2017

¶34

SS(CO) RRK(02/01/2018)

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/s.Sri Kamalaganapathy v. The Additional Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Sri Kamalaganapathy v. The Additional Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Rangasamy Vs Regional Transport Officer

M/S S.K.Decorations Vs the State of Tamilnadu

A.Arangam, Vs The Managing Director

M/s.Advantage Strategic Vs The Principal Commissioner of

M/s.Enmas Andritz Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner of

K.Manikandan Vs The State of Tamilnadu