<?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>1997 (3) TMI 101 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44529</link>
    <description>Composite cardio vascular sutures and atraumatic needled sutures were treated as surgical appliances rather than mere suturing material because their essential character was that of integrated surgical products consisting of a needle and suturing material. The wider expression in Entry 90.18 was preferred over the narrower Chapter 30 classification, and a residuary construction was rejected. Later notifications under Section 5A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 were read as confirming the intention to exempt such life-saving and sight-saving articles, supporting the same interpretation. The goods therefore fell within Entry 90.18 and qualified for exemption from excise duty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Jul 2014 13:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83058" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (3) TMI 101 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44529</link>
      <description>Composite cardio vascular sutures and atraumatic needled sutures were treated as surgical appliances rather than mere suturing material because their essential character was that of integrated surgical products consisting of a needle and suturing material. The wider expression in Entry 90.18 was preferred over the narrower Chapter 30 classification, and a residuary construction was rejected. Later notifications under Section 5A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 were read as confirming the intention to exempt such life-saving and sight-saving articles, supporting the same interpretation. The goods therefore fell within Entry 90.18 and qualified for exemption from excise duty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44529</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>