<?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>1987 (1) TMI 90 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41932</link>
    <description>Circlips manufactured for use in motor cycles, but not connected with pistons or piston assemblies, were treated as outside the exclusion in Item 6 of Notification No. 99/71-C.E. The later expansion of Item 6 to include pistons, piston rings, gudgeon pins and circlips was read as an amendment of the same entry, not a separate category, so the item had to be construed in the context of its original scope. Applying the rule that ambiguity in a taxing exemption is resolved in favour of the assessee, circlips unconnected with piston assemblies remained eligible for exemption and the associated duty demand, confiscation and penalty could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2010 10:48:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80461" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (1) TMI 90 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41932</link>
      <description>Circlips manufactured for use in motor cycles, but not connected with pistons or piston assemblies, were treated as outside the exclusion in Item 6 of Notification No. 99/71-C.E. The later expansion of Item 6 to include pistons, piston rings, gudgeon pins and circlips was read as an amendment of the same entry, not a separate category, so the item had to be construed in the context of its original scope. Applying the rule that ambiguity in a taxing exemption is resolved in favour of the assessee, circlips unconnected with piston assemblies remained eligible for exemption and the associated duty demand, confiscation and penalty could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41932</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>