https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260232 The Supreme Court construed Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. to mean that concessional excise duty applied to liquefied petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons, with only the gases expressly listed in the exclusion clause kept out. It accepted that the phrase "other than" qualified the stated exclusions and upheld the Tribunal's reading of the notification. On that construction, C4 Raffinate was not excluded even if treated as butylene, and was in any event covered as a liquefied petroleum gas; propylene was also covered for Indian Oil Corporation. The Department's challenge to classification and denial of exemption therefore failed, and the assessee obtained the benefit of the notification. en-us Tue, 12 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Aug 2015 15:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260232 The Supreme Court construed Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. to mean that concessional excise duty applied to liquefied petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons, with only the gases expressly listed in the exclusion clause kept out. It accepted that the phrase "other than" qualified the stated exclusions and upheld the Tribunal's reading of the notification. On that construction, C4 Raffinate was not excluded even if treated as butylene, and was in any event covered as a liquefied petroleum gas; propylene was also covered for Indian Oil Corporation. The Department's challenge to classification and denial of exemption therefore failed, and the assessee obtained the benefit of the notification. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260232