<?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>1988 (1) TMI 194 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73723</link>
    <description>Renewal of a gold dealer&#039;s licence could be refused where any prescribed renewal condition under Rule 3 was not satisfied; the authority was not required to assess all conditions cumulatively before declining renewal. A show cause notice was valid because it fairly disclosed the statutory basis under Section 27 and the alleged contravention of Rule 3(f), even without reproducing the rule in exact terms. No separate natural justice breach arose where the dealer had time to reply, was warned of ex parte decision, filed no response, and sought no hearing. Pending appeals did not prevent action based on existing adverse adjudication orders.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112002" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (1) TMI 194 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73723</link>
      <description>Renewal of a gold dealer&#039;s licence could be refused where any prescribed renewal condition under Rule 3 was not satisfied; the authority was not required to assess all conditions cumulatively before declining renewal. A show cause notice was valid because it fairly disclosed the statutory basis under Section 27 and the alleged contravention of Rule 3(f), even without reproducing the rule in exact terms. No separate natural justice breach arose where the dealer had time to reply, was warned of ex parte decision, filed no response, and sought no hearing. Pending appeals did not prevent action based on existing adverse adjudication orders.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73723</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>