- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners whoaremanufacturersof carboncompoundswiththe following prayers : (a) Awritof and/orin thenatureof Mandamus directingandcommandingtherespondentto providethepetitionersthecopyof allthe documents concerning the forwarding of samples by the Respondentsto two government agencies and the test reports issued against the same by the said agencies more fully referred to in the show cause notice dated May 9, 2007 in such time and manner as may be permitted by the said Hon'ble Court. (b) Awritof and/orin thenatureof Mandamus directing and commanding the respondent to from giving effect or further effect and/or acting on the basis ofthe purported show cause notices dated 22 nd November2007and17 th September,2008 untilthedisclosureof allthedocuments2 concerning the testing of samples by the said two Government agencies any furtherin any manner whatsoever. (c) A writ of or in the nature of Certiorari directing and commanding the respondents, each ofthem, theirsubordinatesandofficersto transmitthe recordsrelatingto thecaseso thatappropriate directions as may be found just and proper by the said Hon'ble Court, may be give; (d) Rule NISI in terms of prayers above; (e) Injunction restraining the respondents and each of them,theirsubordinatesandofficersfrom proceedingagainstthe petitionersin connection with the purported show cause notices dated 22 nd November, 2007 and 17 th September 2008 till the disclosureof alldocumentsincludingthetest reportsto thepetitionersanyfurtherin any manner whatsoever; (f) Ad interim order in terms of prayer above; (g) Costs of an incidental to this application be paid to the petitioner by the respondents; (h) Such further and/or other order or orders be made and/or direction or directions be given as to this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper.
(2.) The aforesaid prayers have been made in the background where the petitioners have been issued show cause notices by the department. The show case notices were issued in the year 2007.Pursuantto theshow causenotices,thepetitioners appeared before the department. Having appeared,they did not file any show cause reply and the matter was argued before thedepartmentandon 10.02.2009,personalhearing was made to the petitioner. Having not gone for personal hearing, the petitioners preferred this writ petition before this Court on 09.03.2010 though the endorsement on the petition shows that it was on 06.02.2009 that the affidavit was sworn in.
(3.) Learnedcounselforthepetitionersstrenuously contended that in the instant case the notices as issued,lack credibility because the Commissioner of the department itself has held in its discretion and finding at Annexure 1, vide order dated 09.05.2007 that there is no chemical examiner's report to establish as to the basic ingredients of the product produced bythepetitionersandin thatviewof thematterthe Commissionerhadextendedtimefortheissuanceof show cause notices under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.;