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 blended yarn consisting of 65% polyester staple fibre and 35% viscose staple fibre, without any other textile material, was covered by Sl. No. 113(c) of Notification No. 4/97-C.E. and the corresponding entry in Notification No. 5/98-C.E., so as to qualify for exemption.
Analysis: The relevant entry covered yarn of polyester staple fibre containing cotton, ramie or artificial staple fibre, or any one or more of those fibres, provided it did not contain any other textile material and the polyester staple fibre content was less than 70% by weight. The wording did not require cotton as an invariable constituent. The punctuation and use of the disjunctive expression showed that the yarn could contain cotton, ramie, artificial staple fibre, or a combination of these fibres. The interpretation adopted by the original authority introduced words into the notification and read a limitation that was not expressed. Exemption notifications must be construed strictly according to their text, and one entry cannot be expanded by importing meaning from another entry.
Conclusion: The blended yarn manufactured by the appellant fell within the exemption entry. The denial of exemption was unsustainable.