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 tailor-made glasslined equipment such as autoclaves, distilling units, crystallising units, pressure filters and evaporating pans fell within the description of "enamelware" so as to qualify for exemption under the relevant excise notifications.
Analysis: The term "enamelware" was not defined in the tariff or the notifications, so its meaning had to be gathered from dictionaries, text books and trade understanding. Glasslining may amount to enamelling, but that did not make every glasslined article "enamelware". The expression "ware" in its ordinary commercial sense referred to readymade saleable articles ordinarily sold across the counter, not to huge special-purpose machinery and equipment manufactured to customer specifications. The trade notices and tariff advices relied upon related to ordinary enamel articles such as sign boards and photo trays and could not be extended to the disputed equipment. A liberal construction of an exemption notification could not override the plain meaning of the expression used.
Conclusion: The disputed goods were not enamelware and were not entitled to exemption. The appeal succeeded and the assessee's claim for exemption failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification uses the expression "enamelware" without definition, the term must be understood in its ordinary commercial sense as referring to readymade saleable articles, and not to large tailor-made glasslined machinery or equipment.