<?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 105 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46337</link>
    <description>Kum-Kum pencil falls within the exemption for &quot;Kum Kum&quot; under Notification No. 235/1986-C.E. because the term was used in a general sense and was not confined to any particular market form. The notification covered goods such as Kum Kum, Kajal, Sindur, Alta and Mahavar, and the material showed Kum Kum existed in different forms for use as a bindi. As pencil form is also a form of Kum Kum, there was no valid basis to exclude it from the exemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Jul 2010 12:14:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84863" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (9) TMI 105 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46337</link>
      <description>Kum-Kum pencil falls within the exemption for &quot;Kum Kum&quot; under Notification No. 235/1986-C.E. because the term was used in a general sense and was not confined to any particular market form. The notification covered goods such as Kum Kum, Kajal, Sindur, Alta and Mahavar, and the material showed Kum Kum existed in different forms for use as a bindi. As pencil form is also a form of Kum Kum, there was no valid basis to exclude it from the exemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46337</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>