Shri Mohan Mulherkar v. Shri P.S.Patil & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Central Excise Act, 1944 s. 14(2)
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In view of what is stated above, there is nothing further required to be done in the matter. Petition stands disposed of. (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.) (V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.) (V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.)
Judgment
Shri Mohan Mulherkar .. .. Petitioner v/s. Shri P.S.Patil & anr. .. .. Respondents Mr.Amit Borkar for petitioner. Mr.A.M.Sethna for respondents. ----- CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & V.R. KINGAONKAR, JJ. V.R. KINGAONKAR, JJ. V.R. KINGAONKAR, JJ. DATED : 9th August 2006 DATED : 9th August 2006 DATED : 9th August 2006 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. :
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the authorities of the Excise Department were insisting on the personal presence of the petitioner whereas under Section 14(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, it is permissible for a party to be represented by an authorised agent. A reply has been filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Kolhapur, stating that on an earlier date, the representative of the petitioner was permitted to attend. Over and above, Mr.Sethna appearing for the respondents has made a statement that hereafter also if an authorised agent of the petitioner appears before the officer concerned, he can represent him and there is no -2- necessity of the personal presence of the petitioner.
Operative part
In view of what is stated above, there is nothing further required to be done in the matter. Petition stands disposed of. (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.) (V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.)
(V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Central Excise Act, 1944 — s. 14(2).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 09 Aug 2006. The bench was H L GOKHALE, V R KINGAONKAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.