TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (5) TMI 672
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Petitioner had been summoned as a witness in another case against M/s Parmarth Irons Private Limited. According to the Respondent, during the course of the investigations into M/s Parmarth Irons Private Limited, the Respondent gathered information concerning the commission of offences by M/s Kamakhya Steels Private Limited of which the Petitioner is the Managing Director." 2. This Court had by an order dated 9th April, 2008 granted interim protection of stay of arrest to the Petitioner subject to his cooperating in the investigation. 3. On the previous date of hearing i.e. 23rd April, 2008, the following order was passed by this Court:- 1. The additional submissions supported by an affidavit dated 22nd April, 2008 on behal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o appear on every date thereafter as directed by the Respondent. He further points out that in the present case, i.e. case against M/s Kamakhya Steels Private Limited no summons have been issued to him till date. 4. Copies of the summons dated 10th April, 2008 and 11th April, 2008 have been produced before this Court by Mr. Agarwala, the learned senior standing counsel for the Respondent which show that both these summons were issued to the Petitioner in the case pertaining to M/s Parmarth Irons Private Limited and not in respect of the case against M/s Kamakhya Steels Private Limited, in respect of which the present bail application has been filed. 5. Mr. Agarwala, on instructions, states that summons, in accordance with law, will be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Respondent opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. He tenders a status report supported by an affidavit dated 29th April, 2008. The same is taken on record. It is sought to be contended that the employees of M/s Kamakhya Steels Private Limited are not cooperating and as far as the Petitioner is concerned, although he has joined investigation, he is not prepared to give the information which will help the DGCEI in establishing the evasion of excise duty by the Petitioner. He relies upon the judgments in Enforcement Officer v. Bher Chand Tikaji Bora, 2000 (1211) ELT 7 (SC) and Dukshiyam Benupani v. Arun Kumar Bajoria FERA 1998 Crl. L. J. 841 and the decision dated 1st March, 2005 of the learned Single Judge of this Court in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent to conclude whether the company in question has evaded the payment of excise duty. The concern of the Court is to ensure that investigations are not hampered and that the person who is being issued notice continues to appear as and when directed. There is nothing to indicate that the Petitioner will not appear before the Respondent and cooperate in the investigation. However, it is always open to the Respondent to apply for cancellation of the anticipatory bail if the Petitioner fails to appear before it on any date, as directed by it. 8. It is accordingly, directed that in the event of his arrest, the Petitioner will be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with one surety in the like....