CESTAT held that officers of DGCEI appointed under s.4(1) before 06.07.2011 were validly clothed with assessment and s.28(1) powers pursuant to the Validation Act and subsequent statutory amendments; the issuance of a show cause notice by those officers was legally competent and suffers no infirmity. Separately, the appeal abated under Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 following the death of all partners and dissolution of the partnership firm; while the absence of procedural provisions for recovery from legal representatives does not extinguish substantive liability, the appellate remedy terminated by operation of law and required judicial cognizance to record abatement.
CESTAT held that officers of DGCEI appointed under s.4(1) before 06.07.2011 were validly clothed with assessment and s.28(1) powers pursuant to the Validation Act and subsequent statutory amendments; the issuance of a show cause notice by those officers was legally competent and suffers no infirmity. Separately, the appeal abated under Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 following the death of all partners and dissolution of the partnership firm; while the absence of procedural provisions for recovery from legal representatives does not extinguish substantive liability, the appellate remedy terminated by operation of law and required judicial cognizance to record abatement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
