<?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>1996 (11) TMI 139 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86047</link>
    <description>An adjudication order was set aside because the record did not show that the notice fixing the personal hearing had been despatched or received by the appellant. Without proof of service of the later hearing notice, no effective opportunity of hearing could be established, and the order was therefore treated as passed in breach of natural justice. The matter was directed to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2011 18:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123114" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (11) TMI 139 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86047</link>
      <description>An adjudication order was set aside because the record did not show that the notice fixing the personal hearing had been despatched or received by the appellant. Without proof of service of the later hearing notice, no effective opportunity of hearing could be established, and the order was therefore treated as passed in breach of natural justice. The matter was directed to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86047</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>