<?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 (10) TMI 98 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46362</link>
    <description>Citric acid that was undisputedly a pharmacopoeial standard acid and a product of drug, drug intermediate or pharmaceutical character fell within the exemption notifications on the admitted facts. The Department did not dispute that factual position, so entitlement followed without needing to examine end-use. The Court left open the broader question whether end-use is relevant in other cases when deciding similar notification benefits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2015 16:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84888" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (10) TMI 98 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46362</link>
      <description>Citric acid that was undisputedly a pharmacopoeial standard acid and a product of drug, drug intermediate or pharmaceutical character fell within the exemption notifications on the admitted facts. The Department did not dispute that factual position, so entitlement followed without needing to examine end-use. The Court left open the broader question whether end-use is relevant in other cases when deciding similar notification benefits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46362</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>