Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
The High Court addressed the issue of rectification of an order by the CESTAT, which rejected an application filed u/s 35C (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The key question was whether the discount received by a bank from automobile dealers could be considered as a consideration for service. The Court held that a previous decision by the CESTAT was rendered per incuriam as it did not consider earlier decisions of equal strength. The Court noted the lack of specific references to contradictory decisions in the impugned order. Consequently, the Court quashed the order and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
The High Court addressed the issue of rectification of an order by the CESTAT, which rejected an application filed u/s 35C (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The key question was whether the discount received by a bank from automobile dealers could be considered as a consideration for service. The Court held that a previous decision by the CESTAT was rendered per incuriam as it did not consider earlier decisions of equal strength. The Court noted the lack of specific references to contradictory decisions in the impugned order. Consequently, the Court quashed the order and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
