<?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>1995 (3) TMI 264 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84390</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 66/71 depended on whether ammonium chloride had the commercial identity of fertilizer and was actually used in manufacturing fertilizer. The text draws a distinction between mere technical capability and market reality: higher-purity ammonium chloride was treated as commercially different from fertilizer-grade material, and classification was to follow commercial parlance. Because the respondent&#039;s own classification list did not show the goods as cleared or sold as fertilizer, and the cited circular did not extend the exemption beyond fertilizer as such, the goods were not entitled to the notification benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:29:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121534" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (3) TMI 264 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84390</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 66/71 depended on whether ammonium chloride had the commercial identity of fertilizer and was actually used in manufacturing fertilizer. The text draws a distinction between mere technical capability and market reality: higher-purity ammonium chloride was treated as commercially different from fertilizer-grade material, and classification was to follow commercial parlance. Because the respondent&#039;s own classification list did not show the goods as cleared or sold as fertilizer, and the cited circular did not extend the exemption beyond fertilizer as such, the goods were not entitled to the notification benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84390</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>