JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (i) For quashing of the letter dated 29.4.2009 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 25.3.2009. (ii) For quashing of summons all dated 9.4.2009 and 29.4.2009 illegally and repeatedly issued by respondent no.4 to the employees of the petitioner- Company wholly without jurisdiction. (iii) For a direction to the respondent authorities to provide xerox copies of all the documents illegally seized alongwith the statement of persons which was taken under coercion and duress by the respondent authorities in course of illegal search and seizure dated 25.3.2009, so far as it relates to the petitioner-Company. (iv) For a declaration that the seizure of the documents/records of the petitioner-Company is unauthorized by law in absence of any reasonable belief with regard to the alleged evasion of Central Excise Duty. (v) For a declaration that documents illegally seized cannot be illegally retained without providing xerox copy of the same to the petitioner as the same are required for complying with statutory requirements of other Departments of the Central/State Government. (vi) For a declaration that the summoned persons are employees of the petitioner-Company and anything required to be asked from the persons summoned be asked from the petitioner- Company (the assessee) through letter after providing the xerox copies of the seized documents. (vii) For a declaration that the summons issued illegally to the employees of the petitioner-Company and the documents sought through the summons are wholly without jurisdiction under the facts and circumstances of the case where the statutory documents and returns are already available with the department as well as seized by the respondents and the respondents already had taken statement from the concerned employees under coercion and duress. (viii) For a declaration that the summoned persons has/have no further records/documents for the relevant period in their possession nor they are in possession of any further information and in these circumstances the summons issued are wrong, illegal and liable to be quashed. (ix) For a declaration that the respondents had no jurisdiction over the petitioners premises to conduct the illegal search and seizure. (ix) For a declaration that the respondents had no jurisdiction over the petitioners premises to conduct the illegal search and seizure. (x) 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." 3. Though, in course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently raised several questions relating to the legality of the very seizure itself, we have confined our attention to the question of non-supply of xerox copies of the documents which have been seized from the petitioners premises 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. 4. 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 is authorized by law to search and seize all the documents/records of the petitioner-Company? (b) Whether in absence of reason to believe regarding the alleged evasion of Central Excise Duty, the respondents have jurisdiction to make the illegal search and seizure and issue summons? (c) Whether the respondent authorities can deny issuance of xerox copies of the documents seized in course of inspection dated 25.3.2009? (d) 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? (e) Whether the respondents are not duty bound to provide copy of all records and documents seized alongwith statement of the different persons recorded, relatable to the petitioner-Company for compliance with law? (f) Whether the respondents have jurisdiction over the petitioners factory/office premises situated in Patna? (g) Whether the respondents have jurisdiction to issue summons to the employees of the petitioner-Company? 5. (f) Whether the respondents have jurisdiction over the petitioners factory/office premises situated in Patna? (g) Whether the respondents have jurisdiction to issue summons to the employees of the petitioner-Company? 5. So far as questions (c), (d) & (e) are concerned, they relate to the question of supply of copy of documents whereas questions (a), (b), (f) and (g) relate 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 paragraphs 2(c), (d) and (e). It is not disputed that respondent no.2 had seized certain documents as per Panchnama dated 25.3.2009 (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. 6. The departmental authorities have filed a counter affidavit and defended the letter dated 20.5.2009 wherein it is stated that only some of the documents would be made available to the duly authorized persons of the petitioner-Company and have denied supply of some documents on the plea that they are incriminating and, therefore, could not be supplied at the stage of investigation. The relevant portion of the communication sent by the departmental authorities by letter dated 20.5.2009 is to the following effect: "In this regard, it is, informed that the Department still stands by the view expressed vide this office letter of even no.501 dated 20.4.2009. Though, you have not furnished the serial nos. of search list/seizure list corresponding to the documents/records which are needed by you for complying with the statutory obligations of other Departments, the Department extends you the opportunity 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 to get the documents required by you xeroxed at your own expense. 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. 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 but for those appearing against SI. Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 18 to 28 of the search list. The documents against SI. Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 18 to 28 of the search list are incriminating in nature and the same cannot be made available to you at the investigating stage, because this may adversely affect the investigation. However, copy of the same shall be made available to you along with the show cause notice." 7. 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. S.O. No. 110(3) of the said Act contemplates that the proper officer may seize any documents 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 subsection (3) shall be entitled to make copies thereof or take extracts therefrom in the presence of an officer of customs." 8. 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. 9. 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 cannot claim such right at a subsequent stage. It has further been argued that since investigation is pending, supply of copies of all the documents is likely to prejudice proper investigation. It has further been argued that since investigation is pending, supply of copies of all the documents is likely to prejudice proper investigation. In the letter dated 20.5.2009, the relevant portion whereof we have already extracted above, the departmental authorities have shown their willingness to furnish copies of certain documents but stated therein that xerox copies of the documents required by the company appearing against SI. Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 18 to 28 of the search list cannot be made available to the person deputed for this purpose at the stage of investigation, being incriminating in nature. 10. 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 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. 11. Accordingly, we allow this writ application in part and direct the Department concerned to furnish copies of all the documents including those listed at SI. Nos. 1, 2, 3 18 to 28 to authorized person as contemplated in the communication dated 20th May, 2009. 11. Accordingly, we allow this writ application in part and direct the Department concerned to furnish copies of all the documents including those listed at SI. Nos. 1, 2, 3 18 to 28 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 all the questions raised here before the appropriate authority at the appropriate stage.