<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1987 (7) TMI 308 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73375</link>
    <description>Adequate notice and opportunity were treated as sufficient where the noticee received a show cause notice and reminder but neither replied nor sought a hearing, so the right to a further personal hearing was waived by conduct and ex parte adjudication was permissible. The notice was held valid, pecuniary bias based on officer rewards was rejected, and the retraction plea was unsubstantiated. In a proprietary concern, notice to the concern was treated as effective notice to the proprietor, though the separate penalty on the proprietor was set aside. The duty demand was sustained, but the fine and penalty were moderated, with part of the confiscatory fine reduced and the fine on tread rubber maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111654" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (7) TMI 308 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73375</link>
      <description>Adequate notice and opportunity were treated as sufficient where the noticee received a show cause notice and reminder but neither replied nor sought a hearing, so the right to a further personal hearing was waived by conduct and ex parte adjudication was permissible. The notice was held valid, pecuniary bias based on officer rewards was rejected, and the retraction plea was unsubstantiated. In a proprietary concern, notice to the concern was treated as effective notice to the proprietor, though the separate penalty on the proprietor was set aside. The duty demand was sustained, but the fine and penalty were moderated, with part of the confiscatory fine reduced and the fine on tread rubber maintained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73375</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>