<?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>2001 (5) TMI 372 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96381</link>
    <description>Crude sulphur in granular form was covered by the exemption under Notification No. 7/92-C.E. because the word &quot;powder&quot; was not statutorily defined and its ordinary meaning was wide enough to include dry particles or granules. The assessee&#039;s technical material supported the view that granulation was only an enlarged form of sulphur powder, while the Revenue did not establish any commercial or legal distinction. The later Notification No. 94/93-C.E., which substituted &quot;sulphur&quot; for &quot;sulphur powder,&quot; was treated as clarificatory and reflective of the original scope of the exemption, so the benefit of the earlier notification applied retrospectively from inception.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:58:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133440" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (5) TMI 372 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96381</link>
      <description>Crude sulphur in granular form was covered by the exemption under Notification No. 7/92-C.E. because the word &quot;powder&quot; was not statutorily defined and its ordinary meaning was wide enough to include dry particles or granules. The assessee&#039;s technical material supported the view that granulation was only an enlarged form of sulphur powder, while the Revenue did not establish any commercial or legal distinction. The later Notification No. 94/93-C.E., which substituted &quot;sulphur&quot; for &quot;sulphur powder,&quot; was treated as clarificatory and reflective of the original scope of the exemption, so the benefit of the earlier notification applied retrospectively from inception.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96381</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>