<?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>1979 (12) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40907</link>
    <description>Confiscation proceedings require a fair opportunity to meet the relied-upon material, including cross-examination of witnesses whose statements are used against the affected person. Where denial of such opportunity occurs in a matter carrying serious civil consequences, the adjudication is vitiated by breach of natural justice. The document also states that the Department must prove the alleged violation under the confiscatory provisions, and that no statutory burden shifted to the petitioner because the goods in question were not covered by the presumption relied on. On that basis, the confiscation order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 May 2010 17:32:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79438" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (12) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40907</link>
      <description>Confiscation proceedings require a fair opportunity to meet the relied-upon material, including cross-examination of witnesses whose statements are used against the affected person. Where denial of such opportunity occurs in a matter carrying serious civil consequences, the adjudication is vitiated by breach of natural justice. The document also states that the Department must prove the alleged violation under the confiscatory provisions, and that no statutory burden shifted to the petitioner because the goods in question were not covered by the presumption relied on. On that basis, the confiscation order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40907</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>