<?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>1998 (11) TMI 196 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89455</link>
    <description>Pre-painted aluminium zinc alloy coated sheets in coil were treated as falling within Notification No. 11/97-Cus. because the relevant entry covered cold rolled coils simpliciter, without qualifying words limiting the exemption. The commentary applies the principle that exemption notifications must be construed on their own terms, and that no additional restriction can be implied where the legislature has not used limiting language. By comparing the broad wording of the relevant entry with other entries in the same table that expressly imposed conditions, it concludes that the benefit could not be narrowed by intendment and the denial of exemption was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 11:50:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126517" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (11) TMI 196 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89455</link>
      <description>Pre-painted aluminium zinc alloy coated sheets in coil were treated as falling within Notification No. 11/97-Cus. because the relevant entry covered cold rolled coils simpliciter, without qualifying words limiting the exemption. The commentary applies the principle that exemption notifications must be construed on their own terms, and that no additional restriction can be implied where the legislature has not used limiting language. By comparing the broad wording of the relevant entry with other entries in the same table that expressly imposed conditions, it concludes that the benefit could not be narrowed by intendment and the denial of exemption was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89455</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>