<?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>1985 (6) TMI 32 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41690</link>
    <description>Cushion repair compound used for resoling or retreading tyres was not covered by the exemption notification for rubber products under Item 16-A(2). The notification had to be read on its own language: although its main part granted exemption to specified rubber products, the bracketed exclusion withdrew that benefit from products made wholly or partly of rubber and used for tyre resoling or retreading, including cushion compound and tread gum. The inclusive wording did not narrow that exclusion, and later circulars, subsequent amendments, or an earlier revisional order under a different notification could not alter the plain meaning. Captive consumption did not assist the assessee on the material before the court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jun 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 May 2018 11:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80219" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (6) TMI 32 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41690</link>
      <description>Cushion repair compound used for resoling or retreading tyres was not covered by the exemption notification for rubber products under Item 16-A(2). The notification had to be read on its own language: although its main part granted exemption to specified rubber products, the bracketed exclusion withdrew that benefit from products made wholly or partly of rubber and used for tyre resoling or retreading, including cushion compound and tread gum. The inclusive wording did not narrow that exclusion, and later circulars, subsequent amendments, or an earlier revisional order under a different notification could not alter the plain meaning. Captive consumption did not assist the assessee on the material before the court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jun 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41690</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>