Judgment D.K.Jain, J. 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the summons issued to the petitioners, namely, a private limited company and its director, under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Ludhiana for appearance for the purpose of enquiry into ER-1s for the period from 1-4-2004 to 31-8-2005 as also to the summons issued by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Mumbai and Commissioner of Central Excise, Preventive Wing, Ahmedabad for appearance in connection with enquiry pertaining to the two concerns named in the summons. 2. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the entire amount of Rs. 73.73 lacs towards the alleged fraudulent claim of CENVAT, having been deposited/reversed by them, still the respondents, in the garb of investigations, are bent upon harassing them by issuing the impugned notices. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that the vindictive attitude of the revenue authorities is evident from the fact that the alleged fraudulent claim of CENVAT credit was in respect of the production which took place at Jammu, yet the investigations on the same aspect have been extended to Mumbai and Ahmedabad only with a view to harass them. It is thus, pleaded that the summons be quashed. 3. We are of the view that the writ petition, at this juncture, is utterly misconceived. We do not find any material on record which compels us to accept the stand of the petitioners that the summons have been issued merely because the petitioners had made complaints against the revenue authorities to the Punjab Human Rights Commission. Mere issue of summons under the Act for the purpose of investigations cannot per se be held to be on account of vindictive attitude of the revenue officials. In the absence of any material indicating arbitrary or capricious exercise of power by any authority, it is not within the domain of power of judicial review to even comment on the summons issued, on the presumption that these have been issued for some ulterior purpose. As noted above, we do not find any such material on record. 4. Being bereft of any merit, the writ petition is dismissed. As noted above, we do not find any such material on record. 4. Being bereft of any merit, the writ petition is dismissed. Needless to add that, as already recorded in order dated 29-5-2004, passed in C.W.P. No. 8724 of 2004, the petitioners shall be examined only during office hours and in case the statements/investigations remain inconclusive at the end of the day, the same may be recorded on the following day.