<?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>2005 (3) TMI 491 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201431</link>
    <description>Refusal to supply documents before adjudication was treated as non-fatal where the materials were not relied upon in the show-cause notices, the party had a personal hearing, and written explanations were filed; on those facts, natural justice was not breached for writ intervention. The availability of an appeal also did not make the statutory remedy illusory, because the appellate authority could examine the matter on merits, call for records, and give a post-decisional opportunity even without remand power. As the challenge to the adjudication order failed, the consequential detention order also could not be separately disturbed in writ proceedings, leaving the appellate remedy to be pursued.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Jan 2011 23:14:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=175040" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 491 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201431</link>
      <description>Refusal to supply documents before adjudication was treated as non-fatal where the materials were not relied upon in the show-cause notices, the party had a personal hearing, and written explanations were filed; on those facts, natural justice was not breached for writ intervention. The availability of an appeal also did not make the statutory remedy illusory, because the appellate authority could examine the matter on merits, call for records, and give a post-decisional opportunity even without remand power. As the challenge to the adjudication order failed, the consequential detention order also could not be separately disturbed in writ proceedings, leaving the appellate remedy to be pursued.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201431</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>