<?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>1981 (8) TMI 227 - CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165881</link>
    <description>Ex parte adjudication may be invalid where the affected party is not shown to have received a reliable communication enabling inspection or copying of seized records and an effective hearing. Here, the appellants had sought access to the documents and time to respond, and the record did not prove service of the relevant intimation by registered post acknowledgment due. That absence of reliable proof of notice supported the claim that a fair opportunity of defence had not been given. The Collector&#039;s order was therefore vitiated for breach of natural justice and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication after full opportunity to defend.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2014 14:17:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=363042" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (8) TMI 227 - CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165881</link>
      <description>Ex parte adjudication may be invalid where the affected party is not shown to have received a reliable communication enabling inspection or copying of seized records and an effective hearing. Here, the appellants had sought access to the documents and time to respond, and the record did not prove service of the relevant intimation by registered post acknowledgment due. That absence of reliable proof of notice supported the claim that a fair opportunity of defence had not been given. The Collector&#039;s order was therefore vitiated for breach of natural justice and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication after full opportunity to defend.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165881</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>