<?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>2002 (9) TMI 103 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46329</link>
    <description>Plaster of paris used to make moulds for sanitaryware qualified as an exempt input under Notification No. 217/86-C.E., as amended, because the notification covered specified inputs used within the factory in or in relation to manufacture of final products. After amendment by Notification No. 82/87-C.E., plaster of paris fell within the input category and ceramic goods fell within the final product category. The proviso denying exemption applied only where the final product was wholly exempt or chargeable to nil duty, and sanitaryware was not shown to fall within that exception. The exemption was therefore available, and the orders rejecting it were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2026 16:59:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84855" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (9) TMI 103 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46329</link>
      <description>Plaster of paris used to make moulds for sanitaryware qualified as an exempt input under Notification No. 217/86-C.E., as amended, because the notification covered specified inputs used within the factory in or in relation to manufacture of final products. After amendment by Notification No. 82/87-C.E., plaster of paris fell within the input category and ceramic goods fell within the final product category. The proviso denying exemption applied only where the final product was wholly exempt or chargeable to nil duty, and sanitaryware was not shown to fall within that exception. The exemption was therefore available, and the orders rejecting it were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46329</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>