Promissory note presumption of consideration survives blank-signature and income-tax non-disclosure objections when admissions and attesting evidence ...
Charitable registration cancellation: limitation and jurisdiction upheld, but withdrawal quashed under discontinued provisions for skill-development e...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1421 to 1440 of 96047 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 
