<?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>1989 (2) TMI 368 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112680</link>
    <description>An exemption for hydrazine hydrate under Notification No. 234/82-C.E. was treated as conditional on actual use as a drug-intermediate where the product had multiple industrial and pharmaceutical uses. Because the goods were capable of use in agriculture, textiles, photography, anti-oxidants, propellants and dyes, the notification was read as carrying an implicit end-use requirement, and the claim failed since pharmacopoeia grade status was not shown. A later notification granting unconditional exemption was held to operate prospectively only and could not control the earlier notification or alter its interpretation. The earlier exemption was therefore unavailable on the stated facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 12:35:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149696" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (2) TMI 368 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112680</link>
      <description>An exemption for hydrazine hydrate under Notification No. 234/82-C.E. was treated as conditional on actual use as a drug-intermediate where the product had multiple industrial and pharmaceutical uses. Because the goods were capable of use in agriculture, textiles, photography, anti-oxidants, propellants and dyes, the notification was read as carrying an implicit end-use requirement, and the claim failed since pharmacopoeia grade status was not shown. A later notification granting unconditional exemption was held to operate prospectively only and could not control the earlier notification or alter its interpretation. The earlier exemption was therefore unavailable on the stated facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112680</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>