<?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>1961 (12) TMI 90 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183661</link>
    <description>An alternative remedy under appeal did not bar a writ petition where it was not an effective or sufficient remedy, so writ jurisdiction remained available. A delayed request for personal hearing, not made in the manner required by the notice, did not make the order invalid for breach of natural justice. In customs penalty proceedings, the notice had to specify both the contravention and the proposed penalty; the omission to ask the petitioner to show cause against the penalty caused prejudice, so the penalty was quashed. A confiscation order under the Sea Customs Act was also set aside because relevant mitigating circumstances bearing on culpability were not considered.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2016 12:45:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432030" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (12) TMI 90 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183661</link>
      <description>An alternative remedy under appeal did not bar a writ petition where it was not an effective or sufficient remedy, so writ jurisdiction remained available. A delayed request for personal hearing, not made in the manner required by the notice, did not make the order invalid for breach of natural justice. In customs penalty proceedings, the notice had to specify both the contravention and the proposed penalty; the omission to ask the petitioner to show cause against the penalty caused prejudice, so the penalty was quashed. A confiscation order under the Sea Customs Act was also set aside because relevant mitigating circumstances bearing on culpability were not considered.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183661</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>