LAKHANPAL NATIONAL LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against an elaborate judgment and order dated 30-3-1992 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench, Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the CEGAT ). This order was made by the CEGAT in an appeal filed by the writ petitioners overruling their objection relating to the request of prosecuting agency being represented by an authorised representative i. e. Advocate in the adjudication proceedings before the Collector (see Exhibit C to the petition ).

(2.) THE Division Bench of this Court on 29-7-1992 issued rule nisi and granted ad interim order in terms of prayer (b) and adjourned the writ petition for further hearing on interim relief to 31-7-1992. Matter was adjourned from time to time and today the writ petition is placed before us for considering interim relief.

(3.) MR. Hidaytulla, learned Counsel appearing in support of this petition prayed that since this court has issued rule nisi and granted ad interim order, the said ad interim order be continued until disposal of the petition. He further urged that let the writ petition be fixed immediately for hearing since it has got wide impact. As far as interim relief is concerned, Mr. Hidaytulla urged that under Section 35q of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, a person who is entitled or required to appear before the Central Excise Officer is permitted to appear by an authorised representative. There is no indication in this section permitting the Collector who has issued the show cause notice to allow the department to be represented by an authorised representative. In view of this statutory provision, Counsel urged that overruling of the objection raised by the petitioners over appointment of the representative to represent the department before the collector in show cause notice proceedings pending before him is illegal and without jurisdiction.