https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42250 The court concluded that the respondent was not entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 62/83-Cus for the imported goods, as the exemption was specific to paper-making machinery falling under Heading No. 84.31 and not Heading No. 84.66. The court upheld the classification of the imported goods under Heading No. 84.66 for setting up a paper mill, rejecting the argument that a different duty rate could be imposed. Additionally, the court dismissed the application of the principle "generalia specialibus non derogant" and emphasized that fiscal laws should not be construed in favor of the taxpayer when there is no ambiguity in the statute language. en-us Thu, 28 Jan 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:49:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42250 The court concluded that the respondent was not entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 62/83-Cus for the imported goods, as the exemption was specific to paper-making machinery falling under Heading No. 84.31 and not Heading No. 84.66. The court upheld the classification of the imported goods under Heading No. 84.66 for setting up a paper mill, rejecting the argument that a different duty rate could be imposed. Additionally, the court dismissed the application of the principle "generalia specialibus non derogant" and emphasized that fiscal laws should not be construed in favor of the taxpayer when there is no ambiguity in the statute language. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 28 Jan 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42250