<?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>1988 (10) TMI 47 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42460</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the original petition challenging a notice to show cause against the petitioner, emphasizing that the adjudication proceedings should be conducted by the adjudicating authority. The court noted the absence of allegations of personal mala fides against the authority and highlighted the need for a detailed inquiry into the petitioner&#039;s contentions. It was observed that the petitioner&#039;s challenge to the award scheme was premature as no rewards had been granted in their case. The court declined to intervene, stressing that factual investigations were best left to the adjudicating authority. The original petition and related application were ultimately dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:27:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80989" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (10) TMI 47 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42460</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the original petition challenging a notice to show cause against the petitioner, emphasizing that the adjudication proceedings should be conducted by the adjudicating authority. The court noted the absence of allegations of personal mala fides against the authority and highlighted the need for a detailed inquiry into the petitioner&#039;s contentions. It was observed that the petitioner&#039;s challenge to the award scheme was premature as no rewards had been granted in their case. The court declined to intervene, stressing that factual investigations were best left to the adjudicating authority. The original petition and related application were ultimately dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42460</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>