<?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>2002 (1) TMI 683 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101315</link>
    <description>An appellate authority cannot enhance penalty or order confiscation and redemption fine without serving the statutory notice under Section 35A(3) and giving the affected party a fair opportunity of hearing. Failure to issue such notice before proposing enhancement violates the principles of natural justice because the party is denied an opportunity to meet the proposed adverse action. On that procedural defect, the matter was required to be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo consideration after fresh notice and hearing; the merits of confiscability, penalty, and redemption fine were left open for reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:25:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138365" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (1) TMI 683 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101315</link>
      <description>An appellate authority cannot enhance penalty or order confiscation and redemption fine without serving the statutory notice under Section 35A(3) and giving the affected party a fair opportunity of hearing. Failure to issue such notice before proposing enhancement violates the principles of natural justice because the party is denied an opportunity to meet the proposed adverse action. On that procedural defect, the matter was required to be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo consideration after fresh notice and hearing; the merits of confiscability, penalty, and redemption fine were left open for reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101315</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>