1992 (9) TMI 94 - HC - Central Excise

Collector's Authority Upheld in Excise Duty Case, Interim Relief Denied

LAKHANPAL NATIONAL LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA

The Court upheld the legality of the Collector's decision to appoint an authorized representative for the department in adjudication proceedings, citing ... Adjudication - Authorised representative Issues:1. Challenge against the appointment of an authorized representative by the prosecuting agency in adjudication proceedings.2. Interpretation of Section 35Q of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 regarding appearance by authorized representatives.3. Consideration of whether the Collector can allow the department to be represented by an authorized representative in show cause notice proceedings.4. Determination of whether the appointment of an authorized representative by the Collector is legal and within jurisdiction.5. Assessment of whether the refusal of interim relief is justified based on the circumstances of the case.Detailed Analysis:1. The writ petition challenged the appointment of an authorized representative by the prosecuting agency in the adjudication proceedings before the Collector. The petitioners objected to this representation, arguing that it was illegal and without jurisdiction. The Division Bench issued a rule nisi and granted an ad interim order, which the petitioners sought to continue until the disposal of the petition.2. The Counsel for the petitioners relied on Section 35Q of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which allows a person to appear before the Central Excise Officer through an authorized representative. The Counsel contended that there was no provision permitting the department to be represented by an authorized representative as per this section.3. The Respondents, on the other hand, argued that the appointment of an authorized representative was necessary due to the complexity of the case involving evasion of excise duty amounting to 3.15 crores. They emphasized that the Collector, considering the intricate nature of the issues, decided to allow representation by an authorized person to assist in the proceedings.4. The Court, after considering the arguments from both sides, opined that Section 11A needed to be read with Section 35Q. It was deemed permissible for the Collector to seek assistance from an authorized representative in cases like the present one. The Court noted that the petitioners were already represented by competent Advocates, while the Collector faced complex issues, justifying the appointment of an authorized representative.5. Ultimately, the Court refused to grant interim relief, stating that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners by allowing the department to be represented by an authorized person. The Court found no illegality in the Collector's decision based on the circumstances of the case. The application for continuation of the ad interim order was rejected, and the certified copy of the order was directed to be furnished within one week.