<?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 (7) TMI 117 - Supreme Court (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44588</link>
    <description>Animal feed supplements, including pre-mix vitamin AD-3 (feed grade), were treated as falling within the generic exemption for &quot;animal feed&quot; under the relevant notification, because they were accepted as feed supplements and not medicinal preparations. The later amendment expressly referring to animal feed supplements and concentrates was regarded as clarificatory, supporting the view that such products were already within the exempt category. The construction that products used to supplement and generally added to animal feed are covered by the expression &quot;animal feed&quot; was followed, and in case of two possible interpretations of a taxing exemption, the view favourable to the assessee was preferred. The goods were therefore held exempt and refund was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2025 11:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83117" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (7) TMI 117 - Supreme Court (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44588</link>
      <description>Animal feed supplements, including pre-mix vitamin AD-3 (feed grade), were treated as falling within the generic exemption for &quot;animal feed&quot; under the relevant notification, because they were accepted as feed supplements and not medicinal preparations. The later amendment expressly referring to animal feed supplements and concentrates was regarded as clarificatory, supporting the view that such products were already within the exempt category. The construction that products used to supplement and generally added to animal feed are covered by the expression &quot;animal feed&quot; was followed, and in case of two possible interpretations of a taxing exemption, the view favourable to the assessee was preferred. The goods were therefore held exempt and refund was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44588</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>