<?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 115 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44505</link>
    <description>Synthetic resins claimed as Alkyd Resins were examined for excise exemption under Notification No. 156/65, with the classification turning on technical evidence rather than the respondent&#039;s advertising description. The SC noted that the relevant notification granted full exemption to Alkyd Resins, while Maleic and Phenolic Resins attracted concessional duty under Item 15A. On the material before it, including chemical opinions and technical data, the departmental evidence did not support the Revenue&#039;s classification case, and later Notification No. 122/71 could not govern the earlier period. The products were not shown to fall outside the exemption, so the challenge to the Tribunal&#039;s view failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Jun 2010 16:24:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83034" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (3) TMI 115 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44505</link>
      <description>Synthetic resins claimed as Alkyd Resins were examined for excise exemption under Notification No. 156/65, with the classification turning on technical evidence rather than the respondent&#039;s advertising description. The SC noted that the relevant notification granted full exemption to Alkyd Resins, while Maleic and Phenolic Resins attracted concessional duty under Item 15A. On the material before it, including chemical opinions and technical data, the departmental evidence did not support the Revenue&#039;s classification case, and later Notification No. 122/71 could not govern the earlier period. The products were not shown to fall outside the exemption, so the challenge to the Tribunal&#039;s view failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44505</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>