9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. [Order per : S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President]. These are stay applications filed by two different appellants against two different orders but both the sides submit that the issue involved is the same. 2. In both the cases the goods received as inputs by the appellants were the ones which had been manufactured by IPCL but were not received directly from IPCL; instead ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat there is no doubt or dispute that the inputs as well as the outputs were declared items and the inputs received on gate pass had been utilised for the manufacture of the declared outputs. 7. It was also their contention that in case the department felt that instead of endorsement on the gate pass, subsidiary gate pass should have been obtained, the appellant would have been so advised. Simil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned which has not been done. Similarly, more than two endorsements are not permissible and the endorsed gate passes are acceptable only in case of whole consignment and not part consignment as per the Government Circular. 11. They have no objection if the appeals are also considered today itself. 12. We have considered above submissions. 13. We take note of the agreement between IPCL and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
