<?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>2005 (5) TMI 71 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47360</link>
    <description>Goods described by the assessee in its classification list as glass fabrics impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics or varnish could not later be treated as outside that description to claim exemption under Notification No. 52/86. The notification applied only to goods listed in the Schedule and excluded goods impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics or varnish. On the assessee&#039;s own description of the goods, the exemption was unavailable. The distinction between resins and plastics was not necessary to decide because the classification entry itself was sufficient to deny the benefit of the notification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85879" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (5) TMI 71 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47360</link>
      <description>Goods described by the assessee in its classification list as glass fabrics impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics or varnish could not later be treated as outside that description to claim exemption under Notification No. 52/86. The notification applied only to goods listed in the Schedule and excluded goods impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics or varnish. On the assessee&#039;s own description of the goods, the exemption was unavailable. The distinction between resins and plastics was not necessary to decide because the classification entry itself was sufficient to deny the benefit of the notification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47360</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>