<?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>1996 (12) TMI 69 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44579</link>
    <description>The tariff phrase &quot;used in any dyeing process&quot; in Tariff Item 14D was read as qualifying only synthetic organic derivatives, not synthetic organic dyestuffs. The wording was treated as clear and self-contained: applying the phrase to dyestuffs would be redundant because dyestuffs are already used in dyeing. On that basis, no external aid to interpretation was considered necessary, and the interpretative conclusion was confined to the language of the tariff item itself.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2010 10:09:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83108" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (12) TMI 69 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44579</link>
      <description>The tariff phrase &quot;used in any dyeing process&quot; in Tariff Item 14D was read as qualifying only synthetic organic derivatives, not synthetic organic dyestuffs. The wording was treated as clear and self-contained: applying the phrase to dyestuffs would be redundant because dyestuffs are already used in dyeing. On that basis, no external aid to interpretation was considered necessary, and the interpretative conclusion was confined to the language of the tariff item itself.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44579</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>