https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401739 The High Court admitted the tax appeal and framed substantial questions on whether the Tribunal gave findings and reasoning on penalties, violated natural justice by disregarding arguments, wrongly invoked Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act against a company director, denied cross-examination of key witnesses, failed to follow a coordinate bench direction to refer the matter to the Development Commissioner in a 100% EOU dispute, and correctly invoked Rule 26 of the Central Excise Act. No merits were decided at this stage. In the connected civil application, notice was issued and coercive recovery was stayed until the next hearing date. en-us Wed, 09 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Dec 2020 08:41:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401739 The High Court admitted the tax appeal and framed substantial questions on whether the Tribunal gave findings and reasoning on penalties, violated natural justice by disregarding arguments, wrongly invoked Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act against a company director, denied cross-examination of key witnesses, failed to follow a coordinate bench direction to refer the matter to the Development Commissioner in a 100% EOU dispute, and correctly invoked Rule 26 of the Central Excise Act. No merits were decided at this stage. In the connected civil application, notice was issued and coercive recovery was stayed until the next hearing date. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 09 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401739