Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether flock printing of P.V.C. coated wall-paper amounted to the kind of printing of colours contemplated by Excise exemption Notification No. 62 of 1976, so as to entitle the respondent to exemption.
Analysis: The Appellate Collector had accepted, on the basis of personal observation of the process and expert opinion, that the activity conformed to flock printing and fell within the understanding of the process reflected in the trade notice. The reviewing authority, though proceeding on the footing that the process was flock printing, denied exemption on the view that it was not printing of colour within the notification. The Court held that there was no material to justify that restrictive construction, and that the notification had to be read in the sense in which the relevant expression was generally understood.
Conclusion: The process was covered by the exemption notification and the respondent was entitled to the benefit of exemption.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the order granting exemption to the respondent was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification must be construed according to the ordinary and generally understood meaning of the relevant expression, and a denial of exemption cannot rest on an unsupported restrictive interpretation of the process in question.