https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86755 Conflicting Tribunal views existed on whether transitional Modvat credit for inputs lying in stock on the date of filing a Rule 57G declaration required a separate declaration under Rule 57H(1)(A), or whether disclosure in the Rule 57G declaration was sufficient. Some decisions treated separate prior permission as unnecessary where duty-paid character and stock position were verifiable, while others read Rule 57H as requiring a distinct application. Because the legal position was unsettled, the Tribunal treated the issue as an arguable question of law and held that it was referable to the High Court; the Modvat entitlement on merits was not decided. en-us Tue, 01 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Aug 2011 12:12:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86755 Conflicting Tribunal views existed on whether transitional Modvat credit for inputs lying in stock on the date of filing a Rule 57G declaration required a separate declaration under Rule 57H(1)(A), or whether disclosure in the Rule 57G declaration was sufficient. Some decisions treated separate prior permission as unnecessary where duty-paid character and stock position were verifiable, while others read Rule 57H as requiring a distinct application. Because the legal position was unsettled, the Tribunal treated the issue as an arguable question of law and held that it was referable to the High Court; the Modvat entitlement on merits was not decided. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 01 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86755