<?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>1989 (4) TMI 220 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74910</link>
    <description>A statutory tribunal cannot recall or rehear its own merits order in the absence of express or implied review power under the governing statute or rules. Where notice of hearing was duly served, the party did not appear and sought no adjournment, an ex parte disposal on merits does not amount to a denial of natural justice. Rule 41 procedural powers cannot be used to achieve a substantive review of the earlier order, so the request to reopen the appeal was not sustainable on these facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:36:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113189" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (4) TMI 220 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74910</link>
      <description>A statutory tribunal cannot recall or rehear its own merits order in the absence of express or implied review power under the governing statute or rules. Where notice of hearing was duly served, the party did not appear and sought no adjournment, an ex parte disposal on merits does not amount to a denial of natural justice. Rule 41 procedural powers cannot be used to achieve a substantive review of the earlier order, so the request to reopen the appeal was not sustainable on these facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74910</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>