https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43335 Delegated legislation under the Central Excise Rules could not redefine tariff expressions in a way that enlarged the taxable category or narrowed exemption coverage. The Gujarat HC held that the 1978 notification and supporting trade notice, which treated plastic articles failing a modulus-of-elasticity test as "rigid," were inconsistent with the true meaning of Tariff Item 15A(2) and the exemption notification of 29-5-1971. On the proper construction of the tariff, the petitioner's PTFE sheets were semi-rigid, not rigid. The clarification was therefore invalid, the trade notice could not stand, and the exemption benefit remained available. en-us Thu, 17 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:47:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43335 Delegated legislation under the Central Excise Rules could not redefine tariff expressions in a way that enlarged the taxable category or narrowed exemption coverage. The Gujarat HC held that the 1978 notification and supporting trade notice, which treated plastic articles failing a modulus-of-elasticity test as "rigid," were inconsistent with the true meaning of Tariff Item 15A(2) and the exemption notification of 29-5-1971. On the proper construction of the tariff, the petitioner's PTFE sheets were semi-rigid, not rigid. The clarification was therefore invalid, the trade notice could not stand, and the exemption benefit remained available. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 17 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43335