<?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>1998 (6) TMI 169 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88898</link>
    <description>Failure to provide an effective hearing can justify recall of a final order where the affected party was not properly represented when the appeal was called. The Tribunal treated the absence of hearing as a denial of natural justice and accepted that the lapse was inadvertent. Applying the settled approach that procedural fairness violations merit lenient consideration, it recalled the order and directed the matter to be posted again for hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:11:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125961" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (6) TMI 169 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88898</link>
      <description>Failure to provide an effective hearing can justify recall of a final order where the affected party was not properly represented when the appeal was called. The Tribunal treated the absence of hearing as a denial of natural justice and accepted that the lapse was inadvertent. Applying the settled approach that procedural fairness violations merit lenient consideration, it recalled the order and directed the matter to be posted again for hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88898</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>