https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73606 The note states that the expression "fabric" in the import policy was to be given its plain meaning, and a prior authority was distinguished on facts. Separate policy entries were treated as serving different purposes, so the existence of a specific entry for non-woven fabrics did not make the general entry redundant. It further notes that questions framed around the policy's object and legislative intent did not survive as questions of law because legal instruments must be construed according to their plain meaning rather than imported intendment. The challenge regarding redemption fine was also not accepted, as no supported objection had been raised. The reference application was therefore declined. en-us Thu, 24 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Jun 2011 12:58:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73606 The note states that the expression "fabric" in the import policy was to be given its plain meaning, and a prior authority was distinguished on facts. Separate policy entries were treated as serving different purposes, so the existence of a specific entry for non-woven fabrics did not make the general entry redundant. It further notes that questions framed around the policy's object and legislative intent did not survive as questions of law because legal instruments must be construed according to their plain meaning rather than imported intendment. The challenge regarding redemption fine was also not accepted, as no supported objection had been raised. The reference application was therefore declined. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 24 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73606