- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has challenged the summons issued to him under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner's company, which is a registered company under the provisions of the Companies Act, received a notice dated 12.1.2010 in the name of the company asking it to furnish information given in the said notice. The petitioner-company fully co-operated and furnished all relevant documents and also produced the authorized person of the company to give his statements in inquiry/ investigation under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The company's authorized person holding the post of General Manager (F&A) appeared before the authority and gave his statements. Thereafter the Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Jamshedpur, issued summon under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on 11.11.2011 through the Superintendent (Prev.), Central Excise, Jamshedpur, directing the petitioner, Sri Sudhir Deoras, Managing Director of the petitioner-company, to appear personally before the said authority. In the said summon, though it is stated that he should bring with him information, documents and records specified in the schedule, which may in his knowledge or in his control or in his possession, however, in the schedule, it is specifically mentioned "NIL". Therefore, the present petitioner has been summoned to appear before the said authority in the proceedings of inquiry, which may be, to give evidence and, as per the notice, not for production of documents. The petitioner has challenged the summon on the ground that summon has been issued without there being any reason and inspite of the fact that the authorized officer of the company and who is General Manager (F&A), who has full knowledge of the facts of the case and who is dealing with the subject of taxation matters, appeared before the authority and gave his statements. Today one affidavit has been filed on behalf of the company through its officer, Sri Prabhakar Kumar Singh, stating therein that Mr. Ashim Roy, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner-company before the authority, is one of the senior most officials and is entirely acquainted with all the taxation matters of the company and is a person having best knowledge and the petitioner does not intend to state further or amend any of his statement. In paragraph 25, the petitioner stated that the replies given by Mr. Ashim Roy to the queries raised by the respondent No. 2 is as per best of his knowledge and the petitioner No. 1 does not have to state anything further or amend any of the statements given by Mr. Roy. It is also stated in the rejoinder that whether the plant arid equipments supplied under an independent supply contract is leviable to service tax or not is a matter of legal interpretation based on contracts entered by the company with the customers and the contracts are all ready produced by the company and available on record with the respondents. It is further stated that issuance of summon only for legal interpretation whether plant and equipments supplied under an independent supply contract is leviable to service tax or not is not permissible and such calling of the petitioner would be an exercise in futility and would only cause undue harassment to the petitioner. However, petitioner and the company are fully co-operating in the inquiry under Section 14.
(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that Orissa High Court held that High Court should not interfere at the stage when the Department issues summons and the order of the Orissa High Court rendered in the case of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in : 1995 (75) E.L.T 501 (Ori) has been approved by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as S.L.P. preferred by Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. has been dismissed. Orissa High Court held that power given to the Excise Officer to call upon the person either to give evidence or produce documents in his custody which the Excise Officer believes would have a vital bearing in the inquiry and the status of the persons summoned is of no relevance.
(3.) Be that as it may, legal issue has been raised by the writ petitioner that in a matter of inquiry under Section 14 of the Act of 1944, what is the scope and jurisdiction of the Enquiry Officer in the matter of summoning a person when the assessee is a company and in the opinion of the company, the authorized person has already appeared in inquiry and gave statements which the company Is accepting to be the statements given correctly and fully to the Enquiry Officer, whether, in that situation, merely for the purpose of obtaining information with respect to interpretation of a document, company's Managing Director can be summoned even if the power under Section 14(1) and (2) of the Act of 1944 are wide enough to summon any person whose attendance is considered necessary by the Enquiry Officer?;