<?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 (4) TMI 334 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86112</link>
    <description>An ex parte personal penalty order was set aside because the appellant had not been given a proper opportunity of hearing. The return of the hearing notice marked &quot;unclaimed&quot; was not treated as refusal of notice, and the consultant&#039;s undertaking to produce the appellant supported a fresh hearing. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner of Customs for reconsideration after affording the appellant an adequate opportunity to be heard.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:57:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123179" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (4) TMI 334 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86112</link>
      <description>An ex parte personal penalty order was set aside because the appellant had not been given a proper opportunity of hearing. The return of the hearing notice marked &quot;unclaimed&quot; was not treated as refusal of notice, and the consultant&#039;s undertaking to produce the appellant supported a fresh hearing. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner of Customs for reconsideration after affording the appellant an adequate opportunity to be heard.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86112</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>