<?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 (9) TMI 55 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42153</link>
    <description>An exemption notification must be construed according to the ordinary and generally understood meaning of the relevant expression, not by an unsupported restrictive reading. Applying that approach, flock printing of P.V.C.-coated wall-paper was treated as flock printing within the process understood in trade usage, and the activity fell within Excise Exemption Notification No. 62 of 1976. The Court rejected the view that the process was outside the notification merely because it was not characterised as printing of colour in a narrower sense. The exemption was therefore upheld and the benefit remained available to the respondent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:14:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80682" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (9) TMI 55 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42153</link>
      <description>An exemption notification must be construed according to the ordinary and generally understood meaning of the relevant expression, not by an unsupported restrictive reading. Applying that approach, flock printing of P.V.C.-coated wall-paper was treated as flock printing within the process understood in trade usage, and the activity fell within Excise Exemption Notification No. 62 of 1976. The Court rejected the view that the process was outside the notification merely because it was not characterised as printing of colour in a narrower sense. The exemption was therefore upheld and the benefit remained available to the respondent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42153</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>