CEGAT Refers Duty Determination Issue to Larger Bench for Conflicting Views on Notice Requirement The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT referred a duty determination issue under Rule 96ZP to a Larger Bench due to conflicting views on the necessity of a notice ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
CEGAT Refers Duty Determination Issue to Larger Bench for Conflicting Views on Notice Requirement
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT referred a duty determination issue under Rule 96ZP to a Larger Bench due to conflicting views on the necessity of a notice for confirming duty already determined. The case was postponed for further hearing on 14-1-2002.
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, in the case citation 2001 (12) TMI 560, Justice K.K. Usha and Shri C.N.B. Nair presiding, considered the issue of duty determination under Rule 96ZP. The Tribunal referred the matter for consideration by a Larger Bench due to conflicting views on whether a notice is required for confirming duty already determined. Postponed for hearing on 14-1-2002.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.