IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5902 of 2009 M/S DINA METALS LTD., a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its factory and registered office at Abdul Rahmanpur Road, Didarganj, P.O. Jhauganj, P.S. Malsalami, Patna City, Patna -800 008 through its Manager and Authorised Signatory Anand Kumar Sinha son of Late Sharda Nand Prasad, R/O. N.T.P.C. Colony, East Ramkrishna Nagar, P.O. New Jaganpura, P.s. Ramkrishna Nagar, District Patna 800027. Versus 1. The Union of India through the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Jamshedpur Regional Unit, First Floor, New Kalimatti Road, Sakchi, Jamshedpur. 2. The Director General of Central Excise Intelligence Jamshedpur Regional Unit, First Floor, New Kalimatti Road, Sakchi, Jamshedpur. 3. The Joint Director of Central Excise Intelligence Jamshedpur Regional Unit, First Floor, New Kalimatti Road, Sakchi, Jamshedpur. 4. The Assistant Director of Central Excise Intelligence Jamshedpur Regional Unit, First Floor, New Kalimatti Road, Sakchi, Jamshedpur. 5. The Superintendent of Central Excise Intelligence Jamshedpur Regional Unit, First Floor, New Kalimatti Road, Sakchi, Jamshedpur. 6. The Inspector, DGCEI, Jamshedpur Regional Unit, First Floor, New Kalimatti Road, Sakchi, Jamshedpur. ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Suraj Samdarshi. For the Respondents :- M/S. Archana Meenakshi, Sr. S.C. & Archana Sinha, Jr. S.C. ------- 4 25/08/2009 Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (i) For quashing of the letter dated 29.04.2009 issued by the respondent No. 4, the Assistant Director whereby and whereunder the respondent has virtually denied the issuance of Xerox copies of the documents seized in course of inspection dated 25.03.2009. (ii) For a direction to the respondent authorities to provide xerox copies of all the documents - 2 - seized along with the statement of persons which was taken under coercion and duress by the respondent authorities in course of inspection dated 25.03.2009, so far as it relates to the petitioner company. (iii) For a declaration that documents seized cannot be illegally retained without providing Xerox copy of the same to the petitioner as the same is required for complying statutory requirements of other Departments of the Central/Sate Government. (iv) For a declaration that the respondent had no jurisdiction over the petitioner’s premises to conduct the search. (v) For a declaration that denial to provide copies of the documents seized and statements of persons relatable to the petitioner company recorded on the date of inspection is violative of principles of natural justice; and for any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner may be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.” Though, in course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently raised several questions relating to the legality of the very seizure itself which we are not inclined to go into and, thus, we have confined our attention to the question of supply of Xerox copy of the documents which have been seized from the petitioner leaving other questions open because in our considered opinion it is not necessary to go into those questions at this stage and the petitioner will have an alternative remedy as and when those questions arise. The basic question which has been highlighted in this writ petition is relating to supply of copies of the documents which had been seized from the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the petitioner itself has posed the following questions of law for consideration: (a) Whether the respondent authorities can deny issuance of Xerox copies of the - 3 - documents seized in course of inspection dated 25.03.2009. (b) Whether the respondent authorities can deny issuance of Xerox copies of the documents seized, to the detriment of the petitioner, which in absence of such documents may default in complying with the requirements of the other Departments of Central/State Government. (c) Whether the respondents are not duty bound to provide copy of all documents seized along with statement of persons recorded, relatable to the petitioner Company for compliance of principles of natural justice. (d) Whether the respondents have jurisdiction over the petitioner’s factory/office premises situated in Patna. So far as questions (a), (b) & (c) are concerned, they relate to the question of supply of copy of documents whereas question (d) relates to the question of jurisdiction of the authority over the factory/ office premises of the petitioner. As already indicated above, we are not going into other questions and we are confining our attention only to the questions which have been highlighted in paragraph 2 (a), (b) and (c). It is not disputed hat respondent no. 2 had seized certain documents as per Panchnama dated 25.03.2009 (Annexure-1) from the factory as well as office of the petitioner. The petitioner had made an application for supply of Xerox copies of the documents seized which having been denied the present writ petition has been filed. While entertaining the writ petition, by order dated 11.05.2009 a Division Bench of this Court had observed as follows :- “Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India prays for one week’s time to seek instruction in the matter. Prima facie, this Court is satisfied that the - 4 - petitioner’s request for providing photo copies of the documents seized should be accepted. If possible, it should be made available by the authorities to the petitioner without any delay, preferably by the next date at the cost of the petitioner, which the petitioner agrees to pay. Put up this case under the same heading on 22nd May, 2009.” Thereafter the departmental authorities have filed a counter affidavit and annexed a communication dated 20.05.2009 (Annexure- 1) wherein it is stated that in compliance of the Hon’ble High Court, Patna’s order dated 11.05.2009 (reproduced above) some of the documents would be made available to the duly authorized persons of the petitioner Company but certain documents which in their opinion is incriminating would be withheld at this stage. The relevant portion of the communication sent by the departmental authorities is to the following effect: “However, in compliance of the direction of Hon’ble High Court, Patna, you are requested to depute one person duly authorized by any of the Directors of your company on any working day during working hours on prior appointment with the undersigned. The person so authorized, on the day of his visit, should carry proof of his identity and his signature should be duly attested by the Director authorizing him for this purpose. It is further clarified in this connection that Xerox copies of all the documents seized vide Search list prepared in the factory premises shall be made available to the person so deputed by you. So far as, the documents seized vide search list prepared at your Corporate Office is concerned, it is clarified that Xerox copies of all the documents required by you but for those appearing against Sl. No. 1,2,3,6,7 and 8 of the search list shall be made available to the person deputed for this purpose. The documents against Sl. No. 4.5.9,10, 11 and Sl. no. 12 to 63 of the above search list includes documents related to individuals/HUF/ companies/ Firms other than M/S. Dina Metals, as such, if those are require by you, the person deputed for collection of Xerox copies should - 5 - carry proper authorization by the concerned parties in the manner described above. The documents against Sl. no. 1,2,3,6, 7 and 8 of the search list are incriminating in nature and the same can not be made available to you at the pre-investigation stage, because this may adversely affect the investigation. Necessary submission in this regard is being will be made to the Hon’ble High Court Patna through counter affidavit to the Writ Petition No. CWJC N. 5902 of 2009.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter called the said Act). It is not in dispute that the aforesaid provision of the Customs Act, 1962 is applicable to the Excise Authorities by an appropriate notification issued by the Central Government. Section 110(3) of the said Act contemplates that the proper officer may seize any documents or things which, in his opinion, will be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act. Section 110(4) being relevant is extracted hereunder : “The person from whose custody any documents are seized under sub-section (3) shall be entitled to make copies thereof or take extracts therefrom in the presence of an officer of customs.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the documents have been seized, the department has a duty to furnish copies thereof as contemplated in section 110(4) of the said Act. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that if at all the petitioner had any right, it could have been exercised at the time when the seizure had been made and the petitioner can not claim such right at a subsequent stage. It has further been argued that since investigation is pending, supply of copies of - 6 - all the documents is likely to prejudice proper investigation. In the letter dated 20.05.2009, the relevant portion whereof we have already extracted above, the departmental authorities have shown their willingness to furnish copies of certain documents. It is stated therein that Xerox copies of all the documents are required by the Company but for those appearing against Sl. No. 1,2,3,6,7 and 8 of the search list shall be made available to the person deputed for this purpose. Similarly, it has further been indicated that the documents against Sl. No. 4,5,9,10, 11 and 12 to 63 of the search list would include documents relating to individuals/HUF/Companies/Firms other than the present petitioner and as such copies thereof can be furnished only if a person duly authorized is deputed for the purpose of obtaining copies thereof. It is further stated therein that Xerox copies of the documents required by the company appearing against Sl. No. 1,2,3,6, 7 and 8 of the search list cannot be made available to the person deputed for this purpose at the stage of investigation, being incriminating in nature. We think that in view of the clear and categorical provision made in section 110(4) of the said Act the above stand of the department cannot be accepted since while section 110(3) of the said Act gives authority to the proper Officer to seize any document, section 110(4) of the said Act entitles the person from whose custody the documents were seized, to get copies of the documents seized or take extracts therefrom in the presence of an officer of customs department whereas the submission made by the learned counsel for - 7 - the respondents that it is only at the time of seizure that the petitioner could have taken Xerox copies of the documents seized is also not a practicable suggestion inasmuch as at the time of seizure the necessary facilities may not be available. More so because the intention of the Act is unambiguous that whenever a document is seized by the concerned authority, the authority is obliged to give copies of those documents and section 110(4) does not limit the demand to any period of time. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the investigation would be prejudiced if copies of the documents are given is also fallacious in view of the fact that if furnishing of copies of the documents seized at the time of actual seizure would not prejudice the investigation, it is not understood as to how the subsequent supply of copies of the documents by the Department would prejudice the investigation. Accordingly, we allow this writ application in part and direct the department concerned to furnish copies of all the documents including those listed at Sl. Nos. 1,2,3,6,7 and 8 to authorized person as contemplated in the communication dated 20th May, 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the person authorized by any of the Directors of the Company would go to the office of the present respondent on 1st September, 2009 during office hours and copies of all the documents which had been seized from the petitioner would be made available to him at the cost of the petitioner. It is made clear that the other questions raised by the petitioner have not been considered by us and it will be open to the petitioner to raise - 8 - all the questions raised here before the appropriate authority at the appropriate stage. (P. K. Misra, CJ.) (Anjana Prakash, J.) AMIN