<?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 (7) TMI 272 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32585</link>
    <description>Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required the proper officer, before recovering short-levied duty, to serve a statutory show cause notice specifying the demand and inviting an explanation. A mere letter or other communication that did not clearly state the amount demanded or call upon the assessee to show cause was not a valid substitute. The Delhi High Court treated this notice requirement as mandatory and held that non-compliance deprived the assessee of the opportunity protected by the rule and natural justice. The demand proceedings were therefore held invalid, and the impugned order and consequential demand were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 May 2013 11:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71224" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 272 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32585</link>
      <description>Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required the proper officer, before recovering short-levied duty, to serve a statutory show cause notice specifying the demand and inviting an explanation. A mere letter or other communication that did not clearly state the amount demanded or call upon the assessee to show cause was not a valid substitute. The Delhi High Court treated this notice requirement as mandatory and held that non-compliance deprived the assessee of the opportunity protected by the rule and natural justice. The demand proceedings were therefore held invalid, and the impugned order and consequential demand were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32585</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>