SANJAY GADODIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UPON receipt of summon dated 05.11.2008 issued against the Managing Director, M/s. Scan Sponge Iron Limited (Unit -I & Unit -II) Q -1, Civil Township, Rourkela (for short 'the company) from the office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Bhubaneswar -II under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act) directing appearance for inquiry in "a case against M/s. Scan Sponge Iron Limited" under the Act failing which the petitioner will be liable to be punished under the law, the petitioner has filed this application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'the Cr.P.C.). A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs & Sales Tax, Bhubaneswar (for short 'the Department).

(2.) IT is stated in the application that the company is engaged in manufacture of M.S. Rods. In between 03.11.2008 and 05.11.2008, in the absence of the petitioner, the Department conducted search of and effected seizure in the company premises. Subsequently, the petitioner could come to understand that, in course of stock verification, shortage of M.S. rods was detected. It has been averred in the application that notice under Section 14 of the Act was issued thereafter, without assessing the petitioners liability to pay revenue or penalty for the alleged shortage, though an assessee is entitled to compound the demands towards tax, interest and penalty under the provisions of the Act. Due to such conduct on the part of the officers of the Department, the petitioner apprehends arrest under Section 13 of the Act. It has been averred that the petitioners arrest and detention shall be detrimental to his ill -health, in support of which documents have been filed, as well as prejudicial to the company. In course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner appeared before the Assistant Commissioner of the Range Office of the Central Excise Department in response to the summon, he has again been issued with another notice dated 12.12.2008 under Section 14 of the Act directing his appearance in the office of the Department at Bhubaneswar. Such circumstance has further fortified the apprehension that the officials of the Department may arrest him in the event of which he shall be subjected to humiliation, harassment and other deprivations. As the petitioner happens to be a leading industrialist of the State, his incarceration shall be lower down his dignity in the society without benefiting the Department in any manner in as much as the petitioner is ready to co -operate with any inquiry in connection with the alleged shortage of M.S. rods and to compound any offence found to have been committed by the company.

(3.) AS regards the first objection raised on behalf of the Department it may be pointed out that Section 14 of the Act simply provides for the power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents in inquiries under the Act. It reads :