<?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>2011 (8) TMI 937 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212286</link>
    <description>The Tribunal addressed concerns raised by counsels regarding the sudden listing of cases without proper notice, emphasizing the importance of adequate preparation for effective participation. To remedy this, a minimum of 15 days&#039; notice was requested for hearings, with a starting date suggested for September 2011. Continuous hearings without disruption were agreed upon to meet the High Court&#039;s timeframe. The Tribunal directed the Registry to issue notices to all respondents except one whose case had been heard. Cooperation with the Registry was stressed for timely issuance of notices, and steps were taken to address grievances regarding non-receipt of order copies by the counsel, ensuring a fair and expedited hearing process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185697" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 937 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212286</link>
      <description>The Tribunal addressed concerns raised by counsels regarding the sudden listing of cases without proper notice, emphasizing the importance of adequate preparation for effective participation. To remedy this, a minimum of 15 days&#039; notice was requested for hearings, with a starting date suggested for September 2011. Continuous hearings without disruption were agreed upon to meet the High Court&#039;s timeframe. The Tribunal directed the Registry to issue notices to all respondents except one whose case had been heard. Cooperation with the Registry was stressed for timely issuance of notices, and steps were taken to address grievances regarding non-receipt of order copies by the counsel, ensuring a fair and expedited hearing process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212286</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>