<?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>2019 (7) TMI 1308 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383612</link>
    <description>Failure to serve the demand/show-cause notice and hearing notices vitiated the customs adjudication where the impugned order rested on alleged breach of a duty exemption notification. The petitioners&#039; claim that the notices were never served, together with the fact that the redemption and export obligation discharge certificate had already been furnished, was not disputed. In these circumstances, the Court held that the decision-making process was defective, the petitioner was not required to pursue the alternative statutory appeal, and the absence of a fair hearing invalidated both the order and the consequential alert notice. The respondents were left free to proceed afresh only after issuing proper notice and granting a hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Nov 2019 14:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=581424" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 1308 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383612</link>
      <description>Failure to serve the demand/show-cause notice and hearing notices vitiated the customs adjudication where the impugned order rested on alleged breach of a duty exemption notification. The petitioners&#039; claim that the notices were never served, together with the fact that the redemption and export obligation discharge certificate had already been furnished, was not disputed. In these circumstances, the Court held that the decision-making process was defective, the petitioner was not required to pursue the alternative statutory appeal, and the absence of a fair hearing invalidated both the order and the consequential alert notice. The respondents were left free to proceed afresh only after issuing proper notice and granting a hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383612</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>