https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779219 CESTAT CHENNAI - AT held that officers of DGCEI appointed under s.4(1) and s.5(1) before 06.07.2011 validly possessed power to demand differential duty under s.28(1) of the Customs Act; the Validation Act and subsequent amendments (including s.110AA and s.97) sustain that authority and the SC's review upholds the constitutional validity. The showcause notice was therefore valid. Separatel y, because all partners died and the partnership was closed, the appeal abates under Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982; recovery liability survives though remedy is barred by lack of procedure. en-us Tue, 30 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Oct 2025 09:07:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779219 CESTAT CHENNAI - AT held that officers of DGCEI appointed under s.4(1) and s.5(1) before 06.07.2011 validly possessed power to demand differential duty under s.28(1) of the Customs Act; the Validation Act and subsequent amendments (including s.110AA and s.97) sustain that authority and the SC's review upholds the constitutional validity. The showcause notice was therefore valid. Separatel y, because all partners died and the partnership was closed, the appeal abates under Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982; recovery liability survives though remedy is barred by lack of procedure. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 30 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779219