https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82689 Rule 22 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 permits substitution only in the situations recognised by the rule, and not where the original respondent company continues to exist. On the facts, the requested substitution of a different entity as respondent was therefore not maintainable and was rejected. Because that entity was not accepted as a proper substitute and had no recognised locus standi in the appeal, its purported cross-objections were also not maintainable and were dismissed. Rule 230(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held inapplicable on the facts. en-us Thu, 26 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Jul 2011 17:36:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82689 Rule 22 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 permits substitution only in the situations recognised by the rule, and not where the original respondent company continues to exist. On the facts, the requested substitution of a different entity as respondent was therefore not maintainable and was rejected. Because that entity was not accepted as a proper substitute and had no recognised locus standi in the appeal, its purported cross-objections were also not maintainable and were dismissed. Rule 230(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held inapplicable on the facts. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 26 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82689