<?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>1991 (8) TMI 176 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81431</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 220/77 applied only to epoxy based primers and varnishes, so the assessee had to prove that the product answered that description exactly. The Chemical Examiner&#039;s report showed epoxy type synthetic resin, but it did not conclusively establish that the primer was epoxy based. The manufacturing details and classification particulars were unclear as to the resin medium, and the contemporaneous purchase order described a polybutadiene resin based electrocoat primer. A later amendment to that order was unsupported by independent evidence. Mere presence of epoxy resin as one ingredient was insufficient, and the exemption was held unavailable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2011 15:48:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118576" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (8) TMI 176 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81431</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 220/77 applied only to epoxy based primers and varnishes, so the assessee had to prove that the product answered that description exactly. The Chemical Examiner&#039;s report showed epoxy type synthetic resin, but it did not conclusively establish that the primer was epoxy based. The manufacturing details and classification particulars were unclear as to the resin medium, and the contemporaneous purchase order described a polybutadiene resin based electrocoat primer. A later amendment to that order was unsupported by independent evidence. Mere presence of epoxy resin as one ingredient was insufficient, and the exemption was held unavailable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81431</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>