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...
The HC held that an appeal against the CESTAT order would lie before the Supreme Court u/s 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the original order passed by the Commissioner considered issues relating to taxability, allowability of CENVAT credit, and imposition of penalty, despite CESTAT only examining the limitation issue. Consequently, the HC dismissed the present appeal as not maintainable before it.
The HC held that an appeal against the CESTAT order would lie before the Supreme Court u/s 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the original order passed by the Commissioner considered issues relating to taxability, allowability of CENVAT credit, and imposition of penalty, despite CESTAT only examining the limitation issue. Consequently, the HC dismissed the present appeal as not maintainable before it.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.