<?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>1995 (3) TMI 112 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44268</link>
    <description>A razor with a plastic handle containing an iron rod was held not to qualify for exemption under Notification No. 182/82-C.E. because the concession applied only to goods wholly made of plastic. The article was treated as a composite product of plastic and iron, so it did not satisfy the notification&#039;s condition of being entirely plastic. The exemption claim therefore failed, and the earlier decision found applicable on the facts governed the result.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 May 2014 11:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82797" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (3) TMI 112 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44268</link>
      <description>A razor with a plastic handle containing an iron rod was held not to qualify for exemption under Notification No. 182/82-C.E. because the concession applied only to goods wholly made of plastic. The article was treated as a composite product of plastic and iron, so it did not satisfy the notification&#039;s condition of being entirely plastic. The exemption claim therefore failed, and the earlier decision found applicable on the facts governed the result.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44268</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>