https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753508 The HC disposed of a petition challenging an adjudication order under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017. The court held that while Section 33A of Central Excise Act, 1994 limits adjournments to three dates to expedite proceedings, it doesn't deny hearing opportunities. The adjudicating authority improperly fixed three successive dates within one week, indicating preconceived notions about adjournments. The authority failed to communicate specific orders granting adjournments on each date. The court found the petitioner's right of hearing was seriously impaired, making alternative remedy ineffective. However, since the original show cause notice was validly served, the petitioner was put to terms for the claimed relief. en-us Mon, 20 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 May 2025 12:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753508 The HC disposed of a petition challenging an adjudication order under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017. The court held that while Section 33A of Central Excise Act, 1994 limits adjournments to three dates to expedite proceedings, it doesn't deny hearing opportunities. The adjudicating authority improperly fixed three successive dates within one week, indicating preconceived notions about adjournments. The authority failed to communicate specific orders granting adjournments on each date. The court found the petitioner's right of hearing was seriously impaired, making alternative remedy ineffective. However, since the original show cause notice was validly served, the petitioner was put to terms for the claimed relief. Case-Laws GST Mon, 20 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753508