Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, in an inquiry under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the authority could summon the Managing Director of a company when an authorised company had already appeared and the summons was issued only for recording statements.
Analysis: The power under Section 14 is wide, but it is not arbitrary. A person may be summoned only when the authority considers his attendance necessary for the inquiry, and that requirement must be tested on the facts with an element of reasonableness. In the case of a company, the authority should ordinarily first examine a duly authorised and knowledgeable representative, but it is not bound to accept that representative as the only witness. If the statements already recorded appear incomplete, evasive, or insufficient, the authority may call any other person, irrespective of status, provided necessity is shown by the record. The inquiry being a judicial proceeding also reinforces the need for careful and reasonable exercise of the summoning power.
Conclusion: The summons to the Managing Director was not justified on the facts then obtaining, and the impugned summons was quashed with liberty to proceed further in accordance with law if summoning became necessary.
Ratio Decidendi: The statutory power to summon under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 must be exercised reasonably and only when the authority forms a bona fide view that the person's attendance is necessary for the inquiry.