https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41535 Clause (i) of the proviso to the notification defining mill board and straw board was held applicable to both products, because the definitions did not expressly exclude other materials and the proviso, read with the Explanation, supported a unified construction. Clause (ii) was also acknowledged as applying to both definitions, reinforcing that reading. The operative factual question remained whether the other material used in manufacture exceeded one-third of the total weight, since that finding had not been made by the Central Government and was material to clause (i). The revision therefore required fresh determination on compliance with the one-third limit. en-us Tue, 25 Aug 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Jun 2010 11:51:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41535 Clause (i) of the proviso to the notification defining mill board and straw board was held applicable to both products, because the definitions did not expressly exclude other materials and the proviso, read with the Explanation, supported a unified construction. Clause (ii) was also acknowledged as applying to both definitions, reinforcing that reading. The operative factual question remained whether the other material used in manufacture exceeded one-third of the total weight, since that finding had not been made by the Central Government and was material to clause (i). The revision therefore required fresh determination on compliance with the one-third limit. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 25 Aug 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41535