https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154636 A taxing notification that expressly confined the concessional entry to ammonia anhydrous did not extend to ammonia in aqueous solution. The later KVAT notification deliberately omitted the broader wording used in the earlier notification, and that deletion was treated as significant. Separate tariff treatment of ammonia anhydrous and ammonia in aqueous solution supported the distinction. As a result, ammonia in aqueous solution was regarded as a distinct product and was not eligible for the concessional 4% rate, remaining taxable at the general rate. The principle applied is that when a tax notification narrows an entry and excludes a commodity previously covered, the omitted commodity cannot be read back into the concessional provision. en-us Thu, 03 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Oct 2014 12:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154636 A taxing notification that expressly confined the concessional entry to ammonia anhydrous did not extend to ammonia in aqueous solution. The later KVAT notification deliberately omitted the broader wording used in the earlier notification, and that deletion was treated as significant. Separate tariff treatment of ammonia anhydrous and ammonia in aqueous solution supported the distinction. As a result, ammonia in aqueous solution was regarded as a distinct product and was not eligible for the concessional 4% rate, remaining taxable at the general rate. The principle applied is that when a tax notification narrows an entry and excludes a commodity previously covered, the omitted commodity cannot be read back into the concessional provision. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 03 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154636