https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77751 The Gujarat High Court noted that a later application could properly be treated as one for rectification where no direction had been given to rehear the appeal on merits, and the Tribunal was justified in declining to reopen the matter. It also found no breach of natural justice from the alleged denial of cross-examination or hearing, as no effective request or resulting prejudice was shown. On clandestine removal, the concurrent findings based on recovered parallel invoices and corroborating statements were treated as factual appreciation of evidence, and no perversity, legal infirmity, or substantial question of law was made out. en-us Thu, 15 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77751 The Gujarat High Court noted that a later application could properly be treated as one for rectification where no direction had been given to rehear the appeal on merits, and the Tribunal was justified in declining to reopen the matter. It also found no breach of natural justice from the alleged denial of cross-examination or hearing, as no effective request or resulting prejudice was shown. On clandestine removal, the concurrent findings based on recovered parallel invoices and corroborating statements were treated as factual appreciation of evidence, and no perversity, legal infirmity, or substantial question of law was made out. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 15 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77751