The way I read it, the cabinet was never removed, it was always there and has simply had the OCPDs removed.
And was reused as a junction box (wording in red added by Pierre )
As is often the case you and I read the same rules as opposite as any two people can. :grin:
In my personal opinion you have a predisposition to read the rules as restrictive as possible while I have a predisposition to read the rules as permissive as possible.
I suspect the correct way would be somewhere in between.
A very good compromise!!! I shall meet you on the dwelling field, don't forget your second...of course our seconds will perform the actual dwelling...that leaves us to keep up the good fight.
I think that is very well stated, and I got a good chuckle from it.
It may be somewhat true, and I believe it comes from my experience as an inspector.
Your comment about a service change, is not the same as taking a panel that is designed and used as a panel and then "
gutting the panel and reusing it as a junction box".
The K&T in your example is still being used as a wiring method.
P.S.
I have no issue with the existing panel enclosure being reused as a junction box.
I have even stood behind ECs when challenged by building departments for requiring them to remove K&T wiring by using the NEC as a reference.
Although there is no stopping insurance companies from requiring the property owner from removing these kind of methods.
Also, the comment I made about the NYS code section is more from a legal standpoint. I have seen how the attorneys can use this kind of code language in their favor when necessary.