https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97008 CEGAT held that an exemption notification naming specific hand tools under Chapter 82 could not be read as requiring proof of actual agricultural or horticultural end-use where no such condition was stated for those named goods. The words referring to tools of a kind used in agriculture or horticulture were treated as extending only to unspecified tools, not as qualifying the goods expressly described in the notification. Because the respondents' goods fell within the named description, exemption could not be denied on the ground that the tools might also be usable in other industries. The Revenue's objection failed and the exemption was upheld. en-us Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:23:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97008 CEGAT held that an exemption notification naming specific hand tools under Chapter 82 could not be read as requiring proof of actual agricultural or horticultural end-use where no such condition was stated for those named goods. The words referring to tools of a kind used in agriculture or horticulture were treated as extending only to unspecified tools, not as qualifying the goods expressly described in the notification. Because the respondents' goods fell within the named description, exemption could not be denied on the ground that the tools might also be usable in other industries. The Revenue's objection failed and the exemption was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97008