<?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>1967 (4) TMI 44 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40462</link>
    <description>A quasi-judicial excise adjudication must comply with natural justice, including a fair opportunity to examine the Chemical Examiner and other material witnesses. Refusal to permit such examination was treated as a serious procedural infirmity that vitiated the confiscation and penalty proceedings, and the impugned orders were set aside. The existence of an alternative statutory remedy did not bar writ relief where the action suffered from a defect affecting the legality of the orders. The alternative-remedy objection therefore failed, and the confiscation, penalty, and related demand orders could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Apr 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 May 2010 13:29:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=78993" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (4) TMI 44 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40462</link>
      <description>A quasi-judicial excise adjudication must comply with natural justice, including a fair opportunity to examine the Chemical Examiner and other material witnesses. Refusal to permit such examination was treated as a serious procedural infirmity that vitiated the confiscation and penalty proceedings, and the impugned orders were set aside. The existence of an alternative statutory remedy did not bar writ relief where the action suffered from a defect affecting the legality of the orders. The alternative-remedy objection therefore failed, and the confiscation, penalty, and related demand orders could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Apr 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40462</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>