https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43436 The Court upheld the legality of the Collector's decision to appoint an authorized representative for the department in adjudication proceedings, citing the complexity of the case involving excise duty evasion. It was deemed permissible under Section 35Q of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, for the Collector to seek such assistance. The Court denied interim relief, finding no prejudice to the petitioners, and directed the furnishing of the order copy within a week. en-us Wed, 02 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Nov 2015 14:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43436 The Court upheld the legality of the Collector's decision to appoint an authorized representative for the department in adjudication proceedings, citing the complexity of the case involving excise duty evasion. It was deemed permissible under Section 35Q of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, for the Collector to seek such assistance. The Court denied interim relief, finding no prejudice to the petitioners, and directed the furnishing of the order copy within a week. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43436