<?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>2001 (7) TMI 1334 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457750</link>
    <description>Belated service of the hearing notice deprived the appellant of an effective opportunity of hearing, because the postal acknowledgement showed the notice was received too late for appearance. The non-appearance was therefore justified and not attributable to the appellant. On that basis, the impugned order was unsustainable and was set aside, with the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after granting a reasonable hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2024 17:19:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=770695" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 1334 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457750</link>
      <description>Belated service of the hearing notice deprived the appellant of an effective opportunity of hearing, because the postal acknowledgement showed the notice was received too late for appearance. The non-appearance was therefore justified and not attributable to the appellant. On that basis, the impugned order was unsustainable and was set aside, with the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after granting a reasonable hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457750</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>