<?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>2003 (3) TMI 565 - CEGAT,  MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108887</link>
    <description>Service of a show cause notice on a neighbour or through the appellant&#039;s brother did not satisfy the statutory mode of service because the notice was neither delivered to the appellant, nor to his authorised agent, nor sent in the manner prescribed by law. Service on a person who was not an employee or agent could not be treated as valid service on the appellant, and the notice was therefore invalidly served.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 13:34:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145904" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 565 - CEGAT,  MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108887</link>
      <description>Service of a show cause notice on a neighbour or through the appellant&#039;s brother did not satisfy the statutory mode of service because the notice was neither delivered to the appellant, nor to his authorised agent, nor sent in the manner prescribed by law. Service on a person who was not an employee or agent could not be treated as valid service on the appellant, and the notice was therefore invalidly served.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108887</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>