<?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>1981 (7) TMI 235 - COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165715</link>
    <description>The concessional duty under Notification No. 119/66, as amended, was interpreted not to require that copper and copper alloy sheets and circles be manufactured solely from the specified inputs. The key question was whether an incidental admixture of zinc displaced the exemption, and the reasoning rejected that view because the notification did not use limiting words such as &quot;only&quot;, &quot;exclusively&quot; or &quot;entirely&quot;. On that construction, the presence of zinc did not by itself defeat entitlement to the concessional rate of duty, and the goods remained eligible for the benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2014 11:00:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=361690" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (7) TMI 235 - COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165715</link>
      <description>The concessional duty under Notification No. 119/66, as amended, was interpreted not to require that copper and copper alloy sheets and circles be manufactured solely from the specified inputs. The key question was whether an incidental admixture of zinc displaced the exemption, and the reasoning rejected that view because the notification did not use limiting words such as &quot;only&quot;, &quot;exclusively&quot; or &quot;entirely&quot;. On that construction, the presence of zinc did not by itself defeat entitlement to the concessional rate of duty, and the goods remained eligible for the benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165715</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>