<?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 (11) TMI 177 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87461</link>
    <description>An exemption notification covering chalk and silica was construed strictly, with the tribunal comparing the chemical composition and ordinary meaning of the claimed goods. Calcite was held chemically and descriptively distinct from chalk, which is a natural calcium carbonate derived from marine remains, and wollastonite was held to be calcium silicate rather than silica. The use of the word &quot;namely&quot; showed that only the goods expressly mentioned were covered, so the notification could not be extended by liberal interpretation to chemically different products. The exemption claim therefore failed and the departmental view denying exemption was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2011 11:52:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124528" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (11) TMI 177 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87461</link>
      <description>An exemption notification covering chalk and silica was construed strictly, with the tribunal comparing the chemical composition and ordinary meaning of the claimed goods. Calcite was held chemically and descriptively distinct from chalk, which is a natural calcium carbonate derived from marine remains, and wollastonite was held to be calcium silicate rather than silica. The use of the word &quot;namely&quot; showed that only the goods expressly mentioned were covered, so the notification could not be extended by liberal interpretation to chemically different products. The exemption claim therefore failed and the departmental view denying exemption was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87461</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>