Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1181 to 1200 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
