https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73366 The Tribunal concluded that the Third Member overstepped his jurisdiction by addressing issues where there was no initial disagreement between the two Members. It was determined that the firm commitment date for the letter of credit was when the L/C was issued, not when the application was submitted. The Tribunal emphasized that the Supreme Court's judgment had already clarified this point, making further reference to the High Court unnecessary. The Tribunal rejected the Collector's application for High Court reference, stating that any correction needed should be through rectification of the Tribunal's order. en-us Thu, 18 Jun 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 May 2011 14:57:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73366 The Tribunal concluded that the Third Member overstepped his jurisdiction by addressing issues where there was no initial disagreement between the two Members. It was determined that the firm commitment date for the letter of credit was when the L/C was issued, not when the application was submitted. The Tribunal emphasized that the Supreme Court's judgment had already clarified this point, making further reference to the High Court unnecessary. The Tribunal rejected the Collector's application for High Court reference, stating that any correction needed should be through rectification of the Tribunal's order. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 18 Jun 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73366