<?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 (2) TMI 84 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47336</link>
    <description>Service on a dissolved firm through an ex-employee is not valid where his authority ended with dissolution and there is no fresh authorisation from all partners. The court treated such representation as ineffective against the petitioners. It also held that an adjudicatory order imposing excise duty, interest and penalties cannot stand when passed without giving the affected parties a fair opportunity of hearing. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication after allowing a reply and hearing, with liberty to proceed ex parte if the petitioners failed to appear.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:22:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85855" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (2) TMI 84 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47336</link>
      <description>Service on a dissolved firm through an ex-employee is not valid where his authority ended with dissolution and there is no fresh authorisation from all partners. The court treated such representation as ineffective against the petitioners. It also held that an adjudicatory order imposing excise duty, interest and penalties cannot stand when passed without giving the affected parties a fair opportunity of hearing. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication after allowing a reply and hearing, with liberty to proceed ex parte if the petitioners failed to appear.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47336</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>