https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82810 A reference application filed within limitation was not defeated by an initially vague question because the later addendum merely clarified the point already raised and did not constitute a fresh application. The request for reference to the High Court was nonetheless rejected because the proposed question isolated only part of the Tribunal's reasoning and omitted the other grounds supporting its conclusion. In particular, the Tribunal had considered the relevant rules together, including the treatment of damaged or defective goods received under Chapter X procedure and the interaction between Rule 195 and Rule 196B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, so an answer on the framed question would not materially alter the result. en-us Thu, 30 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Jul 2011 14:58:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82810 A reference application filed within limitation was not defeated by an initially vague question because the later addendum merely clarified the point already raised and did not constitute a fresh application. The request for reference to the High Court was nonetheless rejected because the proposed question isolated only part of the Tribunal's reasoning and omitted the other grounds supporting its conclusion. In particular, the Tribunal had considered the relevant rules together, including the treatment of damaged or defective goods received under Chapter X procedure and the interaction between Rule 195 and Rule 196B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, so an answer on the framed question would not materially alter the result. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 30 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82810