https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43746 An exemption notification for synthetic organic dyestuffs manufactured from imported intermediates was construed as incorporating only the procedural mechanism of Rule 56A, because it referred solely to the "procedure set out in Rule 56A." The HC held that this wording did not import Rule 56A's substantive no-credit restrictions or the provisos to Rule 56A(2), which could not be read into the notification to defeat the exemption. It further held that Rule 56A(1)'s non obstante clause did not displace an independent exemption under Rule 8(1), as the two operated in different fields. The exemption therefore remained available, subject to procedural compliance. en-us Thu, 27 Jun 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Jun 2010 17:31:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43746 An exemption notification for synthetic organic dyestuffs manufactured from imported intermediates was construed as incorporating only the procedural mechanism of Rule 56A, because it referred solely to the "procedure set out in Rule 56A." The HC held that this wording did not import Rule 56A's substantive no-credit restrictions or the provisos to Rule 56A(2), which could not be read into the notification to defeat the exemption. It further held that Rule 56A(1)'s non obstante clause did not displace an independent exemption under Rule 8(1), as the two operated in different fields. The exemption therefore remained available, subject to procedural compliance. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 27 Jun 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43746