<?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>2017 (4) TMI 94 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341124</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. had to be applied strictly on its own terms for security paper manufactured by the Security Paper Mill and supplied only to the specified Government presses and institutions. The notification did not define &quot;security paper&quot; beyond requiring that it be cylinder mould vat made, so denial based on internet-derived descriptions or assumed features such as water mark and security thread was unsustainable. Where doubt existed about the nature of the goods, the proper course was to seek expert or official verification rather than import an unsubstantiated meaning into the exemption entry. The exemption was therefore held admissible and the denial incorrect.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Apr 2017 07:26:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=463898" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 94 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341124</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. had to be applied strictly on its own terms for security paper manufactured by the Security Paper Mill and supplied only to the specified Government presses and institutions. The notification did not define &quot;security paper&quot; beyond requiring that it be cylinder mould vat made, so denial based on internet-derived descriptions or assumed features such as water mark and security thread was unsustainable. Where doubt existed about the nature of the goods, the proper course was to seek expert or official verification rather than import an unsubstantiated meaning into the exemption entry. The exemption was therefore held admissible and the denial incorrect.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341124</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>