<?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>2006 (6) TMI 121 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47782</link>
    <description>Proper service of the call notice was not established where the only postal endorsement was &quot;LEFT&quot;, which did not clearly prove effective service on the addressee. The ex parte customs adjudication was therefore unsustainable for want of proper notice, and the adjudication was set aside. The matter was remitted to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration with a further opportunity of personal hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:58:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86300" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (6) TMI 121 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47782</link>
      <description>Proper service of the call notice was not established where the only postal endorsement was &quot;LEFT&quot;, which did not clearly prove effective service on the addressee. The ex parte customs adjudication was therefore unsustainable for want of proper notice, and the adjudication was set aside. The matter was remitted to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration with a further opportunity of personal hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47782</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>