https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44589 The SC held that a letter dated 16th August, 1985 could not be treated as a valid bill of entry under Section 46(5) for substitution purposes, as the bill must be in the prescribed statutory form. The initial application was not in the prescribed form and thus could not be treated as a bill of entry for warehousing. The subsequent application dated 26th August, 1985 was received late and could not be immediately processed. Allowing substitution at that stage would have resulted in revenue loss due to reduced tax rates. The Tribunal's decision to reject the substitution application was upheld. en-us Wed, 07 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Aug 2025 12:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44589 The SC held that a letter dated 16th August, 1985 could not be treated as a valid bill of entry under Section 46(5) for substitution purposes, as the bill must be in the prescribed statutory form. The initial application was not in the prescribed form and thus could not be treated as a bill of entry for warehousing. The subsequent application dated 26th August, 1985 was received late and could not be immediately processed. Allowing substitution at that stage would have resulted in revenue loss due to reduced tax rates. The Tribunal's decision to reject the substitution application was upheld. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 07 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44589