SUDHIR KUMAR TRIPATHI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition Has Been Preferred Challenging The Summons Issued by the respondent authority dated 01.02.2016 whereby, this petitioner is directed to appear in person before the Superintendent (Prevention), Central Excise and Service Tax, Headquarter, Jamshedpur on 08.02.2016. Against this summons, the present petition has been preferred.

(2.) Counsel Appearing For The Petitioner Submitted That The Petitioner Has nothing to do with M/s Netshelter Marketing Limited, Jamshedpur. Several annexures have been referred by the counsel appearing for the petitioner to point out that the petitioner is neither a Director nor a post holder in M/s Netshelter Marketing Limited and hence, summons issued by the respondentauthority is devoid of any merit and substance. Nonetheless, the petitioner is ready and willing to remain present before the Superintendent (Prevention), Central Excise and Service Tax, Headquarter, Jamshedpur alongwith his lawyer.

(3.) Counsel Appearing For The Respondent Has Raised Strong Objection And It is submitted that a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and it is submitted that big racket is going on in the name of M/s Netshelter Marketing Limited and there are several allegations against this petitioner. Several cheques vouchers of payment of service tax have been prepared. Huge amount of cenvat credit has been availed to the tune of Rs. 3.20 crores approximately and so far investigation which has been carried out shows involvement of this petitioner and other persons who are avoiding, coming to the respondent authority under one or other pretext. In detail the investigation so far carried out has been pointed out in the counter affidavit and therefore, as the investigation is at crucial stage this petition may not be entertained by this Court.