https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45054 The exemption notification for clinical samples turned on the definition of "manufacturer" applicable to a company, which stated that the company must neither hold shares in any foreign company nor have any part of its capital held by a foreigner or foreign company. The Supreme Court accepted that the word "and" in the definition was conjunctive, so both conditions had to coexist to disqualify the company. Because only the second condition was not met, the company did not lose manufacturer status for the purposes of the notification. The respondent company was therefore entitled to the exemption, and the appeal failed. en-us Mon, 08 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Jul 2010 11:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45054 The exemption notification for clinical samples turned on the definition of "manufacturer" applicable to a company, which stated that the company must neither hold shares in any foreign company nor have any part of its capital held by a foreigner or foreign company. The Supreme Court accepted that the word "and" in the definition was conjunctive, so both conditions had to coexist to disqualify the company. Because only the second condition was not met, the company did not lose manufacturer status for the purposes of the notification. The respondent company was therefore entitled to the exemption, and the appeal failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 08 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45054