<?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>1999 (7) TMI 75 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45257</link>
    <description>Inadequate notice of hearing before the appellate tribunal led the Supreme Court to interfere with the remand only to a limited extent. The Court directed the jurisdictional adjudicating authority to hear the parties afresh and decide the matter without being influenced by the observations or findings in the impugned order. The issues raised by the appellant were left open for fresh determination, and the reliance on the cited precedent was also left open to be urged before that authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 14:49:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83786" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (7) TMI 75 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45257</link>
      <description>Inadequate notice of hearing before the appellate tribunal led the Supreme Court to interfere with the remand only to a limited extent. The Court directed the jurisdictional adjudicating authority to hear the parties afresh and decide the matter without being influenced by the observations or findings in the impugned order. The issues raised by the appellant were left open for fresh determination, and the reliance on the cited precedent was also left open to be urged before that authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45257</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>