<?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>Exemption for goods wholly made of plastic does not extend to a razor with a plastic handle containing an iron rod throughout its length. The razor is a composite product of plastic and iron and therefore fails the notification&#039;s condition that eligible goods be wholly made of plastic. The governing precedent applied on materially similar facts, while other cited decisions lacked direct application. Consequently, the exemption claim for the razor fails.</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>Exemption for goods wholly made of plastic does not extend to a razor with a plastic handle containing an iron rod throughout its length. The razor is a composite product of plastic and iron and therefore fails the notification&#039;s condition that eligible goods be wholly made of plastic. The governing precedent applied on materially similar facts, while other cited decisions lacked direct application. Consequently, the exemption claim for the razor fails.</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>