Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4401 to 4420 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Levy of penalty u/r 26 on the Director of the company - Allegation of Clandestine removal of goods - The Tribunal observed that the statement of an employee, admitting to supplying goods, did not specify quantities, values, or payments, making it insufficient as evidence. - Further, The adjudicating authority did not cross-examine the employee, as required under Section 9 (d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Without cross-examination, the employee's statement could not be relied upon as evidence. - No penalty - AT
Levy of penalty u/r 26 on the Director of the company - Allegation of Clandestine removal of goods - The Tribunal observed that the statement of an employee, admitting to supplying goods, did not specify quantities, values, or payments, making it insufficient as evidence. - Further, The adjudicating authority did not cross-examine the employee, as required under Section 9 (d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Without cross-examination, the employee's statement could not be relied upon as evidence. - No penalty - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
