2004 (11) TMI 26

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....missioner of Income-tax, Circle I, Meerut, respondent No. 2, respectively (annexures Nos. 8 and 11 to the writ petition). (ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction, which, this hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii) Award cost of the petition to the petitioner." The petitioner claims to be a manufacturer of air-conditioners, air-conditioner kits, water coolers, water cooler kits and geysers in its factory situated at 149, Delhi Road, Meerut. A search operation was undertaken by the Central excise authority on August 21, 2000, when certain documents were seized from the petitioner's premises. Search operation was undertaken against some other manufacturers also, namely, Navin Electrical....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dy preferred an appeal against the said order passed under the Income-tax Act, which is pending before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Meerut. The orders dated July 27, 2004, passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, and the order dated March 29, 2004, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax are under challenge in the present writ petition. We have heard Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh has filed his appearance on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Meerut, had not returned the non-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he petitioner submitted that counsel, Sri H.K. Jain, had never refused to receive any document and, in fact, vide letter dated October 29, 2004, he had specifically stated that he is prepared to receive the copies of all the documents. Be that as it may, we find that there is a dispute between the parties that the copies of the documents relied upon have not been made available to the petitioner. On the one hand, the petitioner is claiming that all the copies have not been given, whereas, on the other hand, the Department is saying that the copies of the documents have been made available but the petitioner has refused to receive the same. We are not in a position to go into that question in the present proceedings under article 226 of the....