Authorised representation rules upheld where parent statutes permit qualified representatives and no real danger of bias is shown.

The statutory framework under Section 146A of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 35Q of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was read as permitting appearance through authorised representatives, including legal practitioners and other qualified persons. On that basis, Rules 9 and 12 were treated as a valid delegation because they merely identified additional eligible categories and did not conflict with the parent enactments. The bias challenge also failed: the Court held that the appointment of retired departmental officers as special counsels or representatives, without more, showed only a suspicion of bias and not a real danger of bias. In the absence of any demonstrated constitutional or statutory violation, no further guidelines were directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Rule 9 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 and Rule 12 of the Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 2001 were ultra vires the parent enactments on the ground that retired departmental officers and other specified persons could be appointed as authorised representatives or special counsels; (ii) Whether the impugned arrangement was arbitrary for want of safeguards against bias and whether guidelines were required to regulate the conduct of special counsels.

Issue (i): Whether Rule 9 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 and Rule 12 of the Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 2001 were ultra vires the parent enactments on the ground that retired departmental officers and other specified persons could be appointed as authorised representatives or special counsels.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 146A of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 35Q of the Central Excise Act, 1944 permits appearance through authorised representatives, including legal practitioners and other qualified persons. The rules framed under those provisions identify additional categories of persons eligible to act as authorised representatives. The challenge based on Section 33 of the Advocates' Act, 1961 was rejected because the enactments themselves permit such representation and no litigant has a fundamental right to insist on representation by a lawyer in every proceeding. The rules were treated as a valid exercise of delegated power and not inconsistent with the parent statutes.

Conclusion: The challenge to the validity of Rule 9 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 and Rule 12 of the Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 2001 failed and is against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned arrangement was arbitrary for want of safeguards against bias and whether guidelines were required to regulate the conduct of special counsels.

Analysis: The claim of bias was held to rest on a mere possibility or suspicion, not on a real danger of bias. Retired Group A officers of the department were treated as belonging to a different class, and the Court found no basis to hold that their appointment as special counsels or authorised representatives per se created illegality or constitutional infirmity. The Court also distinguished the authorities relied upon by the petitioner and held that the consumer forum directions and the National Tax Tribunal observations did not apply to the present statutory setting. In the absence of a demonstrated constitutional or statutory violation, the Court found no warrant to direct the framing of additional guidelines.

Conclusion: The plea that the appointments were vitiated by bias or that further guidelines were required was rejected and is against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petition challenging the endorsement and the validity of the impugned rules was found to be without merit, and the dismissal left the statutory scheme governing authorised representation undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the parent statute expressly authorises appearance through duly qualified authorised representatives, a delegated rule permitting specified classes of persons to act as such representatives is valid unless a clear conflict with the statute or a real danger of bias is shown.

---