Misdeclaration of quantity rejected where supplier evidence established counting errors, so reassessment, confiscation and redemption fine were set as...
Admissibility of electronic evidence controls valuation and penalty exposure; non compliant e records and statements nullify revaluation and penalties...
A pending appeal abated because the appellant company had been ordered into liquidation and no application for continuance was filed by the official liquidator under Rule 22 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules. The Tribunal applied Rule 22, which bars continuation of an appeal by a wound-up company unless the liquidator seeks to carry it on, and relied on Ghanshyam Mishra to confirm that the proceedings did not survive. The miscellaneous application was disposed of, and the delay in filing it was condoned.
A pending appeal abated because the appellant company had been ordered into liquidation and no application for continuance was filed by the official liquidator under Rule 22 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules. The Tribunal applied Rule 22, which bars continuation of an appeal by a wound-up company unless the liquidator seeks to carry it on, and relied on Ghanshyam Mishra to confirm that the proceedings did not survive. The miscellaneous application was disposed of, and the delay in filing it was condoned.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
