<?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>2000 (9) TMI 458 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94918</link>
    <description>Confiscation and penalty could not be sustained where the adjudicating authority relied on statements and account books that were neither disclosed to the appellant nor referred to in the show cause notices. Because the adverse findings were based entirely on material not made available for rebuttal, the proceedings were vitiated by breach of procedural fairness and the resulting order was liable to be set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2011 17:43:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131977" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (9) TMI 458 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94918</link>
      <description>Confiscation and penalty could not be sustained where the adjudicating authority relied on statements and account books that were neither disclosed to the appellant nor referred to in the show cause notices. Because the adverse findings were based entirely on material not made available for rebuttal, the proceedings were vitiated by breach of procedural fairness and the resulting order was liable to be set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94918</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>