<?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>1996 (5) TMI 199 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85473</link>
    <description>The phrase &quot;Printing and Writing Paper&quot; in the exemption notification was construed broadly, not as a requirement that paper possess both printing and writing qualities simultaneously. Reading the word &quot;and&quot; in a disjunctive sense, the Tribunal held that the benefit extends to paper suitable for printing only, writing only, or both uses. On that interpretation, the assessees were entitled to the exemption under the notification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:24:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122540" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (5) TMI 199 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85473</link>
      <description>The phrase &quot;Printing and Writing Paper&quot; in the exemption notification was construed broadly, not as a requirement that paper possess both printing and writing qualities simultaneously. Reading the word &quot;and&quot; in a disjunctive sense, the Tribunal held that the benefit extends to paper suitable for printing only, writing only, or both uses. On that interpretation, the assessees were entitled to the exemption under the notification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85473</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>