<?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>2003 (8) TMI 51 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46672</link>
    <description>Natural justice required restoration where the assessee&#039;s Goa office had closed, notice of hearing was not effectively served, and non-appearance before the Tribunal was satisfactorily explained by counsel&#039;s affidavit. The record showed that the hearing notice did not reach the assessee in the ordinary course after closure of the project office, and the explanation for absence disclosed sufficient cause. The Tribunal&#039;s refusal to adjourn and rejection of restoration reflected an incorrect appreciation of those reasons. The dismissal of the appeal and refusal to restore it were therefore unsustainable, and the matter had to be heard afresh after due notice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:20:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85192" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (8) TMI 51 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46672</link>
      <description>Natural justice required restoration where the assessee&#039;s Goa office had closed, notice of hearing was not effectively served, and non-appearance before the Tribunal was satisfactorily explained by counsel&#039;s affidavit. The record showed that the hearing notice did not reach the assessee in the ordinary course after closure of the project office, and the explanation for absence disclosed sufficient cause. The Tribunal&#039;s refusal to adjourn and rejection of restoration reflected an incorrect appreciation of those reasons. The dismissal of the appeal and refusal to restore it were therefore unsustainable, and the matter had to be heard afresh after due notice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46672</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>