9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Venkatachalam for the Petitioner. Mr. A.P. Srinivas for the Respondent. ORDER Heard Mr. J. Shankar Raman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.P. Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondent. By consent of the learned counsel for both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e annexures and documents, sent a representation dated 04.02.2014, wherein they sought for copies of certain documents, of which, only three would be relevant for the purpose of this case, as mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, copy of documents recovered from M/s. Jayam Impex, copy of documents recovered from M/s. Kamadaa Impex and copy of documents recovered from M/s MM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pproach the DRI. 6. In the meantime, the petitioner sent a representation, on 15.07.2014, to the DRI. Since the petitioner did not submit their reply to the show cause notice, a notice of personal hearing was issued to the petitioner, dated 06.10.2015, fixing the personal hearing on 15.10.2015. On receipt of the same, once again the petitioner submitted another representation, requesting the copi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to submit its reply. 8. It is not in dispute that those mahazars are drawn at the office premises of those three companies and not from the petitioner. In fact, those three companies and its Partners / Directors are also Notices in the show cause notice. Therefore, during the course of adjudication, if the petitioner's contention is that, certain documents recovered from the office premises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
