https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781387 The HC dismissed the writ petitions, holding there was no jurisdictional error in the CESTAT/Tribunal's common order that the appeals abated on initiation of CIRP and that the Tribunal lacked power to treat voluntary reversal of CENVAT credit as a security/pre-deposit. The Court found the reversals were voluntary (not mandatory pre-deposits under s.35F) and that the operational creditor did not include those claims in its Form B; no illegality or breach of natural justice was shown. Supervisory interference was therefore refused. en-us Wed, 12 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Nov 2025 13:16:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781387 The HC dismissed the writ petitions, holding there was no jurisdictional error in the CESTAT/Tribunal's common order that the appeals abated on initiation of CIRP and that the Tribunal lacked power to treat voluntary reversal of CENVAT credit as a security/pre-deposit. The Court found the reversals were voluntary (not mandatory pre-deposits under s.35F) and that the operational creditor did not include those claims in its Form B; no illegality or breach of natural justice was shown. Supervisory interference was therefore refused. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781387