<?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>1997 (7) TMI 230 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86875</link>
    <description>An exemption notification referring to ships was interpreted broadly to include boats and whalers used for construction for the Indian Navy, because the statutory meaning of vessel is inclusive and covers ships, boats and other descriptions used in navigation. The notification could not be read narrowly to exclude boats where the end use was for Navy vessels. On that basis, goods required for construction of or fitment to Navy vessels were treated as eligible for exemption, and the revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:04:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123942" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (7) TMI 230 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86875</link>
      <description>An exemption notification referring to ships was interpreted broadly to include boats and whalers used for construction for the Indian Navy, because the statutory meaning of vessel is inclusive and covers ships, boats and other descriptions used in navigation. The notification could not be read narrowly to exclude boats where the end use was for Navy vessels. On that basis, goods required for construction of or fitment to Navy vessels were treated as eligible for exemption, and the revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86875</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>