<?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>2009 (7) TMI 59 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34288</link>
    <description>An order passed without affording a fair opportunity of hearing may be set aside where a party was absent before the Tribunal and was not effectively heard. The High Court found that, on the facts, the appellant should have been given one more opportunity to present its case, and the matter therefore required reconsideration on merits. The impugned order was set aside and the dispute remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision after hearing the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Jun 2016 17:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72912" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 59 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34288</link>
      <description>An order passed without affording a fair opportunity of hearing may be set aside where a party was absent before the Tribunal and was not effectively heard. The High Court found that, on the facts, the appellant should have been given one more opportunity to present its case, and the matter therefore required reconsideration on merits. The impugned order was set aside and the dispute remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision after hearing the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34288</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>