KUMARS COTEX LTD Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to assail the adjudication order dated 24-12-2004, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Guntur, and the consequential detention order dated 7-2-2005 passed by the 3rd respondent and seeks in connection therewith a writ of Certiorari.

(2.) The petitioner is a public limited company having been incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Its main activity is manufacturing of cotton yarn and this is 100% export oriented unit. The company started its commercial production on 4-7-2000. On account of its financial constraints the company had to approach the Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), New Delhi. Subsequently, it sought permission for clearing the manufactured goods under domestic tariff area. The petitioner was accordingly permitted to clear the goods under DTA sales fixing the limit at Rs. 950 lakhs in the month of June 2003.

(3.) On gathering intelligence that the petitioner-company was affecting clearances without payment of excise duty, the premises of the company were inspected on 29-7-2003 and scrutinized its record. At the same time, after having noticed that the petitioner did not discharge the duty liability on the cotton yarn and cotton waste cleared by it to DTA, certain records were seized. It was followed up by the first show cause notice dated 28-7-2004 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 48,44,453/- should not be demanded in recovery from the petitioner, and then the second show cause notice dated 3-8-2004 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 1,40,07,854/- should not be demanded and finally third show cause notice dated 9-12-2004 to show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 3,70,52,617/- should not be demanded and recovered from the petitioner for the period in between 4-7-2000 and 30-7-2003. Pursuant to the said notices, the petitioner submitted his written explanations. Sometime thereafter, when a personal hearing was given to the petitioner on 7-12-2004, it was submitted that by letter dated 18-11-2004 the petitioner requested for Photostat copies of certain documents, which were seized by the Department on the premise that for making necessary further submissions they were required. It is now the grievance of the petitioner that without supplying the copies of those documents, which in its view are relevant material for putting forth its case effectively to meet the allegations in the show cause notices, the impugned order dated 24-12-2004 was passed followed up by, as aforesaid, the detention order dated 7-2-2005.