<?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>1976 (4) TMI 206 - APPELLATE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165611</link>
    <description>Denial of natural justice arose where the adjudicating authority relied on a chemical examiner&#039;s report without supplying the test details or disclosing the actual composition found in the yarn, and also refused retesting without giving reasons or calling for the retesting fee. The defect was treated as material because the affected party was not given access to the relevant scientific material needed to meet the case against it. The Assistant Collector&#039;s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after furnishing the report details and allowing retesting on payment of the required fee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Aug 2014 17:53:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=361176" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (4) TMI 206 - APPELLATE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165611</link>
      <description>Denial of natural justice arose where the adjudicating authority relied on a chemical examiner&#039;s report without supplying the test details or disclosing the actual composition found in the yarn, and also refused retesting without giving reasons or calling for the retesting fee. The defect was treated as material because the affected party was not given access to the relevant scientific material needed to meet the case against it. The Assistant Collector&#039;s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after furnishing the report details and allowing retesting on payment of the required fee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165611</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>