https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42365 A duty demand under the warehouse-transfer procedure could not be sustained merely because the consignor failed to present the triplicate application within the prescribed time under Rule 156A(4). Rule 156B(1) was construed as requiring cumulative satisfaction of two conditions: non-presentation of the triplicate application in the prescribed manner and non-receipt of the duplicate application endorsed with the rewarehousing certificate from the destination warehouse. Because the second jurisdictional condition was not shown to exist, the demand was held illegal and set aside in favour of the assessee. en-us Fri, 15 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:18:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42365 A duty demand under the warehouse-transfer procedure could not be sustained merely because the consignor failed to present the triplicate application within the prescribed time under Rule 156A(4). Rule 156B(1) was construed as requiring cumulative satisfaction of two conditions: non-presentation of the triplicate application in the prescribed manner and non-receipt of the duplicate application endorsed with the rewarehousing certificate from the destination warehouse. Because the second jurisdictional condition was not shown to exist, the demand was held illegal and set aside in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 15 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42365