<?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 905 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102362</link>
    <description>Confiscation of a truck could not be sustained where no show cause notice was issued to the recorded owner. The truck stood registered in the appellant&#039;s name, and that ownership was specifically reflected in the notice, but the Revenue did not dispute that the owner was never put to notice before confiscation. In these circumstances, the absence of notice to the owner was fatal to the confiscation order, and the confiscation was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:24:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139411" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (1) TMI 905 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102362</link>
      <description>Confiscation of a truck could not be sustained where no show cause notice was issued to the recorded owner. The truck stood registered in the appellant&#039;s name, and that ownership was specifically reflected in the notice, but the Revenue did not dispute that the owner was never put to notice before confiscation. In these circumstances, the absence of notice to the owner was fatal to the confiscation order, and the confiscation was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102362</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>