https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40860 A company qualified as a "manufacturer" under the exemption notification where the negative conditions in the Explanation were cumulative: it must not hold shares in a foreign company, and no part of its capital must be held by a foreigner or foreign company. The Court also applied Article 14 classification principles and held that excluding companies merely because of a foreign element lacked a rational nexus with the notification's object of supplying clinical samples and benefiting patients, so the exclusionary clause was ultra vires Rule 8. The challenge based on vagueness failed because the notification turned on the presence of any foreign element, not a specified shareholding percentage. en-us Tue, 30 Sep 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 May 2010 13:24:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40860 A company qualified as a "manufacturer" under the exemption notification where the negative conditions in the Explanation were cumulative: it must not hold shares in a foreign company, and no part of its capital must be held by a foreigner or foreign company. The Court also applied Article 14 classification principles and held that excluding companies merely because of a foreign element lacked a rational nexus with the notification's object of supplying clinical samples and benefiting patients, so the exclusionary clause was ultra vires Rule 8. The challenge based on vagueness failed because the notification turned on the presence of any foreign element, not a specified shareholding percentage. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 30 Sep 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40860