<?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 133 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44637</link>
    <description>An exemption notification that specifically names imitation flint paper, leatherite paper and plastic coated paper treats those goods as distinct covered varieties, so the additional requirement of colour printing on one side applies only to converted papers falling within the residual description of goods known by another name. On that interpretation, plastic coated paper qualified for exemption without proof of colour printing, and prior payment of duty on the paper used in manufacture supported satisfaction of the notification&#039;s conditions. The commentary therefore notes that the exemption was available to plastic coated paper and the contrary view was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 09:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83166" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (7) TMI 133 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44637</link>
      <description>An exemption notification that specifically names imitation flint paper, leatherite paper and plastic coated paper treats those goods as distinct covered varieties, so the additional requirement of colour printing on one side applies only to converted papers falling within the residual description of goods known by another name. On that interpretation, plastic coated paper qualified for exemption without proof of colour printing, and prior payment of duty on the paper used in manufacture supported satisfaction of the notification&#039;s conditions. The commentary therefore notes that the exemption was available to plastic coated paper and the contrary view was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44637</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>