<?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>2001 (2) TMI 854 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103500</link>
    <description>A challenge to a demand and classification order based solely on alleged denial of personal hearing failed where the record showed repeated opportunities were given during the proceedings and no reply was filed to the notices. In those circumstances, the absence of a separate hearing before the adjudicating authority was not treated as a breach of natural justice. The plea of violation of natural justice was rejected and the appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:59:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140539" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (2) TMI 854 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103500</link>
      <description>A challenge to a demand and classification order based solely on alleged denial of personal hearing failed where the record showed repeated opportunities were given during the proceedings and no reply was filed to the notices. In those circumstances, the absence of a separate hearing before the adjudicating authority was not treated as a breach of natural justice. The plea of violation of natural justice was rejected and the appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103500</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>