Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
The High Court addressed a challenge to an adjudication order u/s 78 of Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017. The Court emphasized that while Section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1994 limits adjournments to three dates, it does not deny the right to a hearing. The Act aims to expedite adjudication proceedings. The Court noted that fixing three successive dates within a week may suggest bias. The adjudicating authority must pass specific orders for each adjournment sought. The petitioner's right to a fair hearing was deemed impaired, so the Court disposed of the petition without requiring alternative remedies, as the petitioner's right to hearing was affected.
The High Court addressed a challenge to an adjudication order u/s 78 of Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017. The Court emphasized that while Section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1994 limits adjournments to three dates, it does not deny the right to a hearing. The Act aims to expedite adjudication proceedings. The Court noted that fixing three successive dates within a week may suggest bias. The adjudicating authority must pass specific orders for each adjournment sought. The petitioner's right to a fair hearing was deemed impaired, so the Court disposed of the petition without requiring alternative remedies, as the petitioner's right to hearing was affected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
