TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 446
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding information to believe that large scale evasion of duty was carried on by M/s. MGM Metallisers Ltd. and its directors, carried out a search operation on 10.2.2011 on the basis of search authorisation, which according to the Excise authority was issued by the competent authority on 9.2.2011. 2.3 According to the panchnama drawn during search operation, good deal of documents, record and incriminating materials were found from the premises of the petitioner M/s. MGM Metallisers Ltd. at plot no.47, Dabhel Industrial Co-op Soc. Ltd, Dabhel. Such materials also pertained to MGM Metallisers India and yet another partnership firm by the name M/s. Frenylon Industries. 2.4 M/s. MGM Metallisers Ltd. has therefore, filed Special Civil Application No.2503/2012 praying for a declaration that action of search, seizure and inquiry based on such search and seizure was illegal and without jurisdiction. They have prayed for further direction to release all the documents seized during such search operations. 2.5 M/s. Frenylon Industries filed Special Civil Application No.2472/2012 in which initially prayer made was that the officers of the Central Excise department should strictly act i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isions : 1) Sugandha Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. A.K. Saha and anr. reported in 2002 Cri LJ 3852, wherein learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court on facts found that search and seizure operation carried out was wholly unwarranted and unauthorised. The same was quashed making following observations : "22. Even after such threadbare analysis parties were not in a position leave any inch of place to other. As a result whereof, both the contesting parties were allowed to cite two more judgements as per their desire. One is reported in 1997 (90) ELT 241 (K.I. Parumy v. Asst. Collecto r(HG) C. Ez. Collectorate, Cochin) and other is (Assistant Collector of Central Exciuse, Rajamundry v. Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. and ors.) however, in observing the cited portions I find that the Supreme Court is unanimous in one point that test of reasonableness as provided under section 24 of the Evidence Act has to be followed. According to me, reasonableness is variable state of affairs of the mind as per the circumstances. I am not a moment want to say it is to be taken leisurely in a given situation. But is it the given situation wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....velopments, the Court was of the opinion that question of validity of search had lost its importance. 4) State of Rajasthan v. Rehman reported in 1978 (2) ELT 294 (SC), wherein the Apex Court observed that a search made without jurisdiction does not become legal just because the officer making the search has recorded reasons for making such search. 6. On the other hand, learned senior counsel Shri R.J. Oza for the department opposed the petitions contending that there was voluminous materials available with the department for having reason to believe that there was large scale evasion of excise duty carried out by the director of M/s. MGM Metallisers Ltd. by creation of several group companies in which members of the same family were closely connected. Taking us through detailed affidavits filed by the Excise Department, counsel contended that previously on 2.2.2011 on the basis of intelligence received by the department, several premises of various companies located in Daman connected with the petitioners' entities were carried out. On 10.2.2011 search operation was carried out in other premises for which proper authorisation was issued by the competent au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpanies were also subjected to the search operations. At page-321 of the compilation of Special Civil Application No.2503/2012 respondents have produced an authorisation of search in favour of one Sameer Navle issued by the Deputy Director of the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence. The contents thereof reads as under : "To Shri Sameer Navle, Intelligence Officer, DGCEI, Regional Office Unit, Vapi. Whereas an information has been laid before me which is considered to be reliable and due enquiry having been made thereupon, I have reason to believe that goods liable to confiscation and documents relevant to the proceedings under the Central Excise Act, 1944 are secreted in the business/residential premises detailed herein below : M/s. MGM Metallisers Ltd., Plot No.47, Dabhel Industrial Co-op Soc. Ltd., Dabhel. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962, made applicable to Central Excise vide Government of India (Ministry of Finance) Notification No.68/63-CE dated 04.95.1963 (as amend....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was authorised to carry out such operation in case of M/s. MGM Metallisers Ltd., Plot No.47, Dabhel Industrial Co-op Soc. Ltd., Dabhel. It is not in dispute that such premises came to be searched on 10.2.2011 by said Shri Sameer Navle and his associate officers of the Excise department. A detailed panchnama was also drawn duly signed by two panch witnesses recorded on the same date. There is thereafter some controversy with respect to what ensued after such search was concluded. As per the departmental authorities as was recorded in the further panchnama of 11.2.2011, the Central Excise authorities were intercepted and also not allowed to paste panchnama on the premises or to carry the seized documents and other materials with them and in fact due to which the police protection had to be called. As per the petitioners however, no such hindrance was made and in fact the excise authorities harassed the directors and other members and had treated them shabbily. We are not directly concerned with such allegations and counter allegations. In any case, in a writ petition, it would not not be possible for us to judge the validity of conflicting versions merely on the basis of affidavits.....