<?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>1984 (7) TMI 331 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111062</link>
    <description>Mixed xylene cleared for use in making paints and varnishes was treated as eligible for the broader exemption under Notification No. 276/67, because the term &quot;chemicals&quot; in the scheduled industrial use was construed to cover paints and varnishes on the materials before the Tribunal. Notification No. 35/73, though specifically addressing mixed xylene as a solvent, diluent or thinner for paints and allied products, provided only partial relief. Where both notifications could apply, the one granting greater exemption was preferred on the facts. Clearances made on central excise documents also negatived any allegation of clandestine removal, and the token penalty was held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:15:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148078" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (7) TMI 331 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111062</link>
      <description>Mixed xylene cleared for use in making paints and varnishes was treated as eligible for the broader exemption under Notification No. 276/67, because the term &quot;chemicals&quot; in the scheduled industrial use was construed to cover paints and varnishes on the materials before the Tribunal. Notification No. 35/73, though specifically addressing mixed xylene as a solvent, diluent or thinner for paints and allied products, provided only partial relief. Where both notifications could apply, the one granting greater exemption was preferred on the facts. Clearances made on central excise documents also negatived any allegation of clandestine removal, and the token penalty was held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111062</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>