https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99300 A reference application under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act was held not maintainable because the dispute on Modvat credit for capital goods was already covered by precedent. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had accepted the assessee's declaration and records, and had rejected the Revenue's objection regarding duplicate invoices. As no fresh or substantial question of law arose from the Revenue's grounds, the request to draw up a statement of case was refused and the reference application was rejected. en-us Fri, 17 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:16:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99300 A reference application under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act was held not maintainable because the dispute on Modvat credit for capital goods was already covered by precedent. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had accepted the assessee's declaration and records, and had rejected the Revenue's objection regarding duplicate invoices. As no fresh or substantial question of law arose from the Revenue's grounds, the request to draw up a statement of case was refused and the reference application was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99300