<?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>2010 (10) TMI 79 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113231</link>
    <description>Adjudication under the repealed foreign exchange law was treated as commencing when the first show-cause notice was issued, because that is the point at which the adjudicating officer takes notice of the alleged contravention and applies mind to whether proceedings should continue. Read with the saving clause in the later enactment, section 49(3), section 51 of the repealed law and the adjudication rules, the later hearing notice was only a continuation of the same process and not the start of proceedings. As the first notice was issued within the prescribed sunset period, the timeliness objection failed and the proceedings were valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150247" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (10) TMI 79 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113231</link>
      <description>Adjudication under the repealed foreign exchange law was treated as commencing when the first show-cause notice was issued, because that is the point at which the adjudicating officer takes notice of the alleged contravention and applies mind to whether proceedings should continue. Read with the saving clause in the later enactment, section 49(3), section 51 of the repealed law and the adjudication rules, the later hearing notice was only a continuation of the same process and not the start of proceedings. As the first notice was issued within the prescribed sunset period, the timeliness objection failed and the proceedings were valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113231</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>