<?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 (6) TMI 68 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45972</link>
    <description>Cancellation of a customs duty exemption certificate for imported life-saving hospital equipment was held unsustainable because the authority acted in breach of natural justice by not issuing a show-cause notice, not supplying the visiting committee report, and not affording an opportunity of hearing; consequently, the cancellation and rejection orders were set aside. The HC further held that where the State authority&#039;s recommendation pertained to the relevant period, its rejection without proper consideration was impermissible, leading to the same consequence. Since Notification 64/88 stood rescinded from 1-3-1994, pending exemption applications could not be decided under it and had to be determined on merits under the subsequent Notifications 122/94 and 55/95; the matter was remitted to the competent authority for fresh disposal accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Dec 2025 11:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84498" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (6) TMI 68 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45972</link>
      <description>Cancellation of a customs duty exemption certificate for imported life-saving hospital equipment was held unsustainable because the authority acted in breach of natural justice by not issuing a show-cause notice, not supplying the visiting committee report, and not affording an opportunity of hearing; consequently, the cancellation and rejection orders were set aside. The HC further held that where the State authority&#039;s recommendation pertained to the relevant period, its rejection without proper consideration was impermissible, leading to the same consequence. Since Notification 64/88 stood rescinded from 1-3-1994, pending exemption applications could not be decided under it and had to be determined on merits under the subsequent Notifications 122/94 and 55/95; the matter was remitted to the competent authority for fresh disposal accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45972</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>