Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.33 seconds)
M/S.Amman Match Company vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Gst & ... on 18 July, 2018 cites

(Smt.) Smita Pandurang Dalvi, Of Bombay ... vs Ratnakar Dattatraya Patade, Of Bombay, ... on 26 February, 2002

16. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would rely on a few judgments in support of his contention. A Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in 2010 (253) E.L.T. 722 (Mad) [Optigrab International vs. Government of India], while dealing with the issue of personal hearing in an appeal proceeding, held that the Additional Bench of Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission examined the application and other connected records and has taken into consideration the reply filed by the appellant therein and decided the issue. In such an appeal proceeding, it is observed that if personal hearing is not given, it could not be said that there was violation of principles of natural justice. More so, the subject matter of controversies/disputes between the parties only impinge upon the interpretation of various Sections of the Customs Act on legal plane and, therefore, no prejudice was caused to the party in not providing opportunity of hearing to its authorised representative. Whereas, in the instant case, a show cause notice was issued by the adjudicating authority to the petitioner and it requires explanation directly by him and in cases of clarification, requires his presence in person to explain the factual issues. The issue decided by this Court in the above said case is with regard to the appeal proceeding and that cannot be equated with the original proceedings, where the presence of the noticee is very much essential.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1259 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Manohar vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 13 December, 2012

(5) Khaitan Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd vs. UOI 2013(292) ELT 44(Bom)]; (6) Tinplate Co. of India Ltd vs. UOI [2013(288) ELT 59 (Jhar)]; (7) Manohar Vs. State of Maharashtra [2013(295) ELT 358 (SC)]; (8) Reema Gases (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner [2014(309) ELT A50 (Cal)]; (9) Kantilal B.Mohite vs UOI 2014(306) ELT 51 (Bom)]; (10) Baboo Ram Hari Chand vs. UOI [2014(304) ELT 371 (Guj)]; (11) Logic Transware India Pvt Ltd vs. CC. [2014(302) ELT 228(Del)]; (12) Adhunik Power Transmission Ltd. vs. UOI [2015(325) ELT 865 (Jhar)];
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 56 - S Kumar - Full Document
1   2 Next