The Tribunal held that describing goods as painted steel sheets instead of painted galvanised steel sheets was not mis-declaration. It ruled that incomplete description does not justify confiscation or penalties.
The Tribunal emphasized that adjudication must remain within the allegations contained in the notice. It found that introducing new evidence during adjudication amounted to substituting the original grounds.
The Tribunal held that allegations of siphoning ₹30 lakh were not supported by any evidence tracing funds to the respondent. Mere non-reflection in books was found insufficient to establish fraud. The ruling clarifies that concrete proof of diversion and intent is required under Section 66(1).
The Court found no separate evidence linking the employee to wrongdoing beyond what was considered for the employer. It ruled that penalty cannot be sustained without independent justification.
The Tribunal held that processes like washing, crushing, and sizing converted ore into concentrate under deemed manufacture provisions. As a result, exemption meant for ores was denied.
The Tribunal held that MMR cannot be applied where income is modest and statutory conditions are not met. It directed recomputation without applying higher tax rates.
The Tribunal held that appeals against liquidator decisions must be filed within 14 days. It ruled that delays beyond this period cannot be condoned.
The Court held that rejecting an appeal for wrong jurisdiction without proper mechanism was a mistake. It restored the appeal and directed its transmission to the correct authority.
The Tribunal held that all resolution plans were rightly rejected as they offered values below liquidation value. It emphasized that the CoC’s commercial judgment, based on financial viability, cannot be interfered with unless statutory provisions are violated. The ruling reinforces that business decisions of the CoC are paramount in insolvency proceedings.
The issue was whether share capital addition could be sustained without seized evidence. The Tribunal held that in absence of incriminating material, the addition under Section 68 is invalid.
