<?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>1984 (5) TMI 236 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157087</link>
    <description>Clause 8B of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 applies to open general licence applications as well as other pending import allotments, because it is an interim preventive power directed to matters still under investigation. The authority may act ex parte without a pre-decisional hearing where public interest requires urgency, but the affected party must be allowed a post-decisional representation on request. Communication of the decision is necessary, although the order need not record elaborate reasons. An abeyance circular based on relevant material and separate consideration of the concerns was not invalid for being omnibus or without jurisdiction, so the challenge failed in substance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 May 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2014 19:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174112" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (5) TMI 236 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157087</link>
      <description>Clause 8B of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 applies to open general licence applications as well as other pending import allotments, because it is an interim preventive power directed to matters still under investigation. The authority may act ex parte without a pre-decisional hearing where public interest requires urgency, but the affected party must be allowed a post-decisional representation on request. Communication of the decision is necessary, although the order need not record elaborate reasons. An abeyance circular based on relevant material and separate consideration of the concerns was not invalid for being omnibus or without jurisdiction, so the challenge failed in substance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 May 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157087</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>