SC: Forfeiture of Earnest Money Impermissible When Both Buyer and Seller are at Fault  ||  Supreme Court: Gravity of Offence Cannot Defeat Speedy Trial; Pre-Trial Detention is Punishment  ||  SC: Terrorist Act under UAPA Includes Conspiracies to Disrupt Essential Supplies, Not Just Violence  ||  Supreme Court Directs Measures to Prevent False and Frivolous Complaints Against Judicial Officers  ||  SC: Mere Participation in Arbitration Doesn’t Bar Challenging Arbitrator; Waiver Must be in Writing  ||  SC: Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the Plaintiff, as Dominus Litis, Cannot be Forced to Add a Defendant  ||  SC: Law Does Not Change With a New Bench; Decisions of a Coordinate Bench are Binding  ||  Delhi HC Absence of Formal Arrest under Section 311A Crpc Does Not Bar Giving Handwriting Samples  ||  Del HC: Security Guards Performing Duties Cannot Be Prosecuted For Wrongful Restraint or Molestation  ||  Bombay HC: Housing Society Earning From Telecom Towers Isn’t An ‘Industry’; Staff Get No Gratuity    

CESTAT: Penalty Under Central Excise Act is Not Sustainable by Third Party Evidence - (19 May 2022)

EXCISE

Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi has ruled that the demand of duty and penalty under the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not sustainable by the third–party evidence.

Tags : CUSTOMS   EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL   CENTRAL EXCISE ACT   1944   DEMAND OF DUTY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved