<?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 (7) TMI 358 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202135</link>
    <description>An adjudication order was treated as invalid in law because it did not disclose the name of the person who passed it in the preamble, last page, or elsewhere. On that basis, the order was set aside. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, and the assessee was to be given a proper opportunity of hearing and to place subsequently obtained documents before the adjudicating authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=175724" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 358 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202135</link>
      <description>An adjudication order was treated as invalid in law because it did not disclose the name of the person who passed it in the preamble, last page, or elsewhere. On that basis, the order was set aside. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, and the assessee was to be given a proper opportunity of hearing and to place subsequently obtained documents before the adjudicating authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202135</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>