<?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 (7) TMI 302 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90150</link>
    <description>A fiscal exemption or exclusion in Notification No. 160/86 must be read strictly according to its wording, and its scope cannot be expanded by implication. Because the notification excluded transformers but did not expressly exclude their parts, the exclusion was confined to transformers alone. The absence of any specific reference to parts showed no intention to deny concessional treatment to such goods, so parts of radiators remained entitled to the benefit of the notification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:58:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127212" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (7) TMI 302 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90150</link>
      <description>A fiscal exemption or exclusion in Notification No. 160/86 must be read strictly according to its wording, and its scope cannot be expanded by implication. Because the notification excluded transformers but did not expressly exclude their parts, the exclusion was confined to transformers alone. The absence of any specific reference to parts showed no intention to deny concessional treatment to such goods, so parts of radiators remained entitled to the benefit of the notification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90150</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>