https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340279 A substantial question of law will not be answered if it does not arise from the Tribunal's actual findings. The Bombay High Court found that the Tribunal had treated the dispute as one of factual and evidentiary foundation, including opportunity to the alleged dummy unit and proof of the departmental case on merits, rather than adopting any general rule that notice to a sole proprietor was legally insufficient. As the framed question did not emerge from the impugned reasoning, the Court left it open for consideration in an appropriate future case and disposed of the appeal without determining the merits of that issue. en-us Tue, 14 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Nov 2017 12:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340279 A substantial question of law will not be answered if it does not arise from the Tribunal's actual findings. The Bombay High Court found that the Tribunal had treated the dispute as one of factual and evidentiary foundation, including opportunity to the alleged dummy unit and proof of the departmental case on merits, rather than adopting any general rule that notice to a sole proprietor was legally insufficient. As the framed question did not emerge from the impugned reasoning, the Court left it open for consideration in an appropriate future case and disposed of the appeal without determining the merits of that issue. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 14 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340279