https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78631 The Court dismissed both appeals (CEA Nos. 121 and 122 of 2010) as no substantial questions of law arose from the issues raised. The appellant's arguments regarding faulty Review Order Authorization, show cause notice validity, time-barred demand, invoice authentication, and defacement were not considered substantial. The Court emphasized the need to differentiate between questions of law and fact, ultimately concluding that the issues raised did not warrant further consideration. en-us Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Aug 2011 15:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78631 The Court dismissed both appeals (CEA Nos. 121 and 122 of 2010) as no substantial questions of law arose from the issues raised. The appellant's arguments regarding faulty Review Order Authorization, show cause notice validity, time-barred demand, invoice authentication, and defacement were not considered substantial. The Court emphasized the need to differentiate between questions of law and fact, ultimately concluding that the issues raised did not warrant further consideration. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78631