<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1998 (5) TMI 228 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91184</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the Department&#039;s proposed question was fit for reference to the High Court because the same point had already been referred in an earlier matter involving the same reasoning on Modvat credit and endorsed gate passes. It did not reject the application on maintainability or relevance, and instead treated the issue as properly referable. The reference application was allowed, and the stated question was referred to the High Court for opinion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 23 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2011 13:10:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128246" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (5) TMI 228 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91184</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the Department&#039;s proposed question was fit for reference to the High Court because the same point had already been referred in an earlier matter involving the same reasoning on Modvat credit and endorsed gate passes. It did not reject the application on maintainability or relevance, and instead treated the issue as properly referable. The reference application was allowed, and the stated question was referred to the High Court for opinion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 23 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91184</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>