https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92743 Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.) was framed as a table of authorised duty-paying documents, and the dispute concerned whether subsidiary gate passes issued after 1-4-1994, where the original gate passes were issued earlier, fell under Entry 10 or Entry 12. On the admitted facts, the claim could reasonably fit either entry, so the controversy depended on interpretation of the notification rather than a purely factual dispute. Because the notification did not clearly exclude one entry in favour of the other, the matter gave rise to a substantial question of law and was referable to the High Court on eligibility for Modvat credit. en-us Thu, 16 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Nov 2011 17:25:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92743 Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.) was framed as a table of authorised duty-paying documents, and the dispute concerned whether subsidiary gate passes issued after 1-4-1994, where the original gate passes were issued earlier, fell under Entry 10 or Entry 12. On the admitted facts, the claim could reasonably fit either entry, so the controversy depended on interpretation of the notification rather than a purely factual dispute. Because the notification did not clearly exclude one entry in favour of the other, the matter gave rise to a substantial question of law and was referable to the High Court on eligibility for Modvat credit. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 16 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92743