https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80242 Concessional exemption on rails supplied to the Railways could not be denied merely because A.R. 3A re-warehousing endorsement was not produced, where C.T. 2 certificates, an L-6 licence, and a certificate of utilisation indicated compliance with Chapter X procedure and actual use for railway tracks. The A.R. 3A form was treated as a warehousing document, not a statutory condition for Chapter X clearances. The decisive question was whether the rails were in fact received and used as required by the exemption notification. The denial based only on the missing endorsement was not sustained, and the matter was remanded for verification against departmental records and the appellant's evidence. en-us Fri, 01 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:17:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80242 Concessional exemption on rails supplied to the Railways could not be denied merely because A.R. 3A re-warehousing endorsement was not produced, where C.T. 2 certificates, an L-6 licence, and a certificate of utilisation indicated compliance with Chapter X procedure and actual use for railway tracks. The A.R. 3A form was treated as a warehousing document, not a statutory condition for Chapter X clearances. The decisive question was whether the rails were in fact received and used as required by the exemption notification. The denial based only on the missing endorsement was not sustained, and the matter was remanded for verification against departmental records and the appellant's evidence. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 01 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80242