https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257930 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. en-us Mon, 19 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Oct 2015 17:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257930 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 19 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257930