https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167337 4-harness drill was held outside the concessional duty regime because proviso (v) to Notification No. 226/77-C.E. applied only to goods answering the then-current definition of "controlled drill" under the Cotton Textiles (Control) Order, 1948. The definition originally included 4-harness drill, but Notification No. CER/1/69 deleted it from 1 November 1969, and the amended definition governed the exemption because the notification referred to the class as defined "from time to time". The argument that a separate stamping-control concept preserved the goods was rejected, as was reliance on incorporation to freeze the earlier definition. The exemption claim therefore failed on the proper construction of the linked textile-control notifications. en-us Wed, 19 Dec 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Dec 2014 15:07:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167337 4-harness drill was held outside the concessional duty regime because proviso (v) to Notification No. 226/77-C.E. applied only to goods answering the then-current definition of "controlled drill" under the Cotton Textiles (Control) Order, 1948. The definition originally included 4-harness drill, but Notification No. CER/1/69 deleted it from 1 November 1969, and the amended definition governed the exemption because the notification referred to the class as defined "from time to time". The argument that a separate stamping-control concept preserved the goods was rejected, as was reliance on incorporation to freeze the earlier definition. The exemption claim therefore failed on the proper construction of the linked textile-control notifications. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 19 Dec 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167337