https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91055 A product described as "spert" was treated as a protein food supplement, not a milk food, because the department did not establish that it squarely fell within the exclusionary description in Entry 14 of Notification No. 17/70 dated 1-3-1970. On that basis, the exemption under the notification remained available and excise duty exemption was upheld. The reasoning emphasised that where an exemption notification contains an exclusionary entry, the burden lies on the department to prove that the product answers that description before exemption can be denied. en-us Wed, 10 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:17:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91055 A product described as "spert" was treated as a protein food supplement, not a milk food, because the department did not establish that it squarely fell within the exclusionary description in Entry 14 of Notification No. 17/70 dated 1-3-1970. On that basis, the exemption under the notification remained available and excise duty exemption was upheld. The reasoning emphasised that where an exemption notification contains an exclusionary entry, the burden lies on the department to prove that the product answers that description before exemption can be denied. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 10 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91055