https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42379 The note states that the Board's power to invest a person with Central Excise Officer powers was treated as substantive and broad enough to include adjudicatory functions, so the Director (Audit) notification was valid. It also explains that pending matters could be administratively assigned between competent authorities without a separate transfer provision or prior notice, because no assessee has a vested right to be assessed by a particular officer. Parallel adjudication and criminal prosecution were said not to violate self-incrimination protections, and the bias challenge failed because the alleged pecuniary interest was remote and speculative. en-us Thu, 11 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:03:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42379 The note states that the Board's power to invest a person with Central Excise Officer powers was treated as substantive and broad enough to include adjudicatory functions, so the Director (Audit) notification was valid. It also explains that pending matters could be administratively assigned between competent authorities without a separate transfer provision or prior notice, because no assessee has a vested right to be assessed by a particular officer. Parallel adjudication and criminal prosecution were said not to violate self-incrimination protections, and the bias challenge failed because the alleged pecuniary interest was remote and speculative. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 11 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42379