ALKARMA Vs. COMMISSIOINER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Issue Rule.

(2.) Ms.Jyoti Singh appears for the respondents and agrees to the final disposal of this writ petition at this stage itself.

(3.) The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of Aluminum doors and window frames, curtain walls, claddings, structural glazing and composite claddings, which, according to the respondents, falls under Chapter 76 and Chapter 70 of the Ist Schedule of the Central Excise Tarrif Act, 1985. On receipt of a certain report alleging clandestine manufacture and removal of the aforesaid excisable good from the office-cum-factory premises of the petitioner, the Anti-Evasion Branch of the Central Excise Commissioner, Delhi appears to have conducted a search. A scrutiny of the records recovered from the said premises pertaining to various contracts undertaken by the petitioner, reveals that the petitioner was manufacturing and clearing the goods in excess of the value on which central excise duty was paid from the year 1997-98 onwards. Statement of Shri Sanjiv Chaudhary, one of the partners of the petitioner, was also, in the course of these investigations, recorded, which eventually culminated in the issue of two show-cause notices dated 7.11.2002 and 8.5.2003.