TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether polyester fibre manufactured from a mixture of waste and virgin chips was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 16/82-C.E. dated 14th February, 1982, even though it was not manufactured exclusively out of waste; (ii) Whether the exemption could be granted on a proportionate basis where the specified waste formed only part of the raw material used.
Issue (i): Whether polyester fibre manufactured from a mixture of waste and virgin chips was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 16/82-C.E. dated 14th February, 1982, even though it was not manufactured exclusively out of waste.
Analysis: The notification was construed in the light of earlier decisions which held that expressions such as "manufactured out of" should not be read as importing the words "only" or "exclusively" unless the notification itself clearly says so. The presence of some non-specified material does not by itself defeat the exemption if the relevant specified material is used in the manufacturing process and the notification does not impose an exclusivity condition. The reasoning in the cited authorities supported the view that exemption notifications of this kind must be interpreted according to their plain language and not by adding restrictive words.
Conclusion: The fibre was not disentitled to exemption merely because it was manufactured from a mix of waste and virgin chips; the objection that it was not made exclusively out of waste was rejected in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the exemption could be granted on a proportionate basis where the specified waste formed only part of the raw material used.
Analysis: The notification was read as granting relief to the extent the specified waste contributed to the final product, rather than denying the benefit altogether merely because other materials were also used. The principle applied was that, unless the notification clearly excludes mixed manufacture, the proper approach is to extend relief proportionately so that the benefit corresponds to the specified material used in the finished product. This avoided the artificial result of reading a restrictive condition into the notification and aligned the interpretation with the object of granting relief for recycled waste.
Conclusion: Proportionate exemption was available, and the department could not deny the benefit in full merely because the final product also contained virgin chips, in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the rejection of exemption was set aside, with the assessee held entitled to the benefit of the notification on a proportionate basis.
Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification using the expression "manufactured out of" cannot be confined to goods made exclusively from the specified material unless the notification itself says so; where the specified material forms part of the final product, proportionate relief is available.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
