<?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>2008 (3) TMI 149 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30229</link>
    <description>A penalty order under section 112A of the Customs Act was held vulnerable where the adjudicating authority proceeded despite knowing that the noticee was detained and unable to respond or attend the hearing. Service by affixation alone, without any effective attempt to communicate directly, deprived the appellant of a meaningful chance to file a reply and be heard. That failure amounted to a breach of natural justice, and the impugned order was set aside with remand for fresh adjudication after affording personal hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=68886" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (3) TMI 149 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30229</link>
      <description>A penalty order under section 112A of the Customs Act was held vulnerable where the adjudicating authority proceeded despite knowing that the noticee was detained and unable to respond or attend the hearing. Service by affixation alone, without any effective attempt to communicate directly, deprived the appellant of a meaningful chance to file a reply and be heard. That failure amounted to a breach of natural justice, and the impugned order was set aside with remand for fresh adjudication after affording personal hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30229</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>