https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204309 SC held that the exemption condition No.38 is clear and must be applied as written; a joint venture is a legal person for the purpose of notification and the actual-user condition was not satisfied by the appellant. The Court criticized conflicting CESTAT benches for creating judicial uncertainty and directed that divergent views should be referred to the President for a larger Bench. Appeal dismissed and decision rendered against the assessee. en-us Wed, 06 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Aug 2025 17:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204309 SC held that the exemption condition No.38 is clear and must be applied as written; a joint venture is a legal person for the purpose of notification and the actual-user condition was not satisfied by the appellant. The Court criticized conflicting CESTAT benches for creating judicial uncertainty and directed that divergent views should be referred to the President for a larger Bench. Appeal dismissed and decision rendered against the assessee. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 06 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204309