https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82343 Exemption under Notification No. 276/67-C.E. depended on the true character of the C.P. 3 coating, not on whether its manufacture or application resembled paint. Earlier test reports stated that the product was neither paint nor varnish, while the later report only suggested similarity to paint and allied materials; that evidence was not categorical enough to displace the earlier findings. On the record, the coating was treated as a carbonaceous chemical formulation used in the manufacture of layer flat cells, and it therefore fell within the exemption. The duty demands could not be sustained. en-us Wed, 30 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Jul 2011 14:55:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82343 Exemption under Notification No. 276/67-C.E. depended on the true character of the C.P. 3 coating, not on whether its manufacture or application resembled paint. Earlier test reports stated that the product was neither paint nor varnish, while the later report only suggested similarity to paint and allied materials; that evidence was not categorical enough to displace the earlier findings. On the record, the coating was treated as a carbonaceous chemical formulation used in the manufacture of layer flat cells, and it therefore fell within the exemption. The duty demands could not be sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 30 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82343