<?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 (5) TMI 427 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201752</link>
    <description>Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 requires written notice, an opportunity to submit a written representation, and a reasonable opportunity of hearing before confiscation or penalty. The record showed that the petitioner received a detailed show cause notice, filed an interim reply, sought cross-examination, and was given repeated personal hearings, but did not file the final reply or remain present. Because the delay was attributable to the petitioner and sufficient opportunity had been afforded, the adjudication and appellate orders were not vitiated for breach of natural justice, and the challenge to the confiscation and penalty orders failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Jul 2013 11:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=175346" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (5) TMI 427 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201752</link>
      <description>Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 requires written notice, an opportunity to submit a written representation, and a reasonable opportunity of hearing before confiscation or penalty. The record showed that the petitioner received a detailed show cause notice, filed an interim reply, sought cross-examination, and was given repeated personal hearings, but did not file the final reply or remain present. Because the delay was attributable to the petitioner and sufficient opportunity had been afforded, the adjudication and appellate orders were not vitiated for breach of natural justice, and the challenge to the confiscation and penalty orders failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201752</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>