https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116512 An exemption notification defining "ice-cream" was construed on its own terms, requiring the goods to be commonly known as ice-cream or kulfi and to use milk, cream or another milk product. The lower authorities wrongly relied on the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act's 10% milk-fat standard, but the applicable notification could not be read by importing a different statutory definition. On the recorded facts, the products were marketed and cleared as other than ice-cream, and no evidence showed common parlance treatment as ice-cream. The notification's first condition was therefore not met, so the exemption remained available and the revenue appeals failed. en-us Thu, 25 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:52:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116512 An exemption notification defining "ice-cream" was construed on its own terms, requiring the goods to be commonly known as ice-cream or kulfi and to use milk, cream or another milk product. The lower authorities wrongly relied on the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act's 10% milk-fat standard, but the applicable notification could not be read by importing a different statutory definition. On the recorded facts, the products were marketed and cleared as other than ice-cream, and no evidence showed common parlance treatment as ice-cream. The notification's first condition was therefore not met, so the exemption remained available and the revenue appeals failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 25 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116512