<?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>2007 (10) TMI 214 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4112</link>
    <description>Semi-finished spectacle lens blanks requiring further grinding, polishing and cutting were treated as optical elements under heading 9001 90 90 because they were optically worked on one side only and did not answer the description of fully finished spectacle lenses under headings 9001 40 90 or 9001 50 00. The exemption under Notification No. 06/06-C.E. was denied because the notification covered only spectacle lenses, exemption provisions must be construed strictly, and semi-finished blanks cannot be included by functional utility or trade understanding when the wording is clear. The classification and denial of exemption were upheld, and the appeals failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43459" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (10) TMI 214 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4112</link>
      <description>Semi-finished spectacle lens blanks requiring further grinding, polishing and cutting were treated as optical elements under heading 9001 90 90 because they were optically worked on one side only and did not answer the description of fully finished spectacle lenses under headings 9001 40 90 or 9001 50 00. The exemption under Notification No. 06/06-C.E. was denied because the notification covered only spectacle lenses, exemption provisions must be construed strictly, and semi-finished blanks cannot be included by functional utility or trade understanding when the wording is clear. The classification and denial of exemption were upheld, and the appeals failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4112</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>