<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1989 (4) TMI 195 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74794</link>
    <description>Exemption notifications using the term &quot;tar&quot; were construed strictly by reference to trade and common parlance, not by importing the broader wording of Item 11(5) of the Central Excise Tariff. On that approach, pitch creosote oil mixture was held outside the scope of the tariff exemption under Notifications No. 121/62 and 75/84. The assessee&#039;s claim to exemption therefore failed, and the Department&#039;s interpretation of the notifications was accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Jun 2011 10:36:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113073" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (4) TMI 195 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74794</link>
      <description>Exemption notifications using the term &quot;tar&quot; were construed strictly by reference to trade and common parlance, not by importing the broader wording of Item 11(5) of the Central Excise Tariff. On that approach, pitch creosote oil mixture was held outside the scope of the tariff exemption under Notifications No. 121/62 and 75/84. The assessee&#039;s claim to exemption therefore failed, and the Department&#039;s interpretation of the notifications was accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74794</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>