https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47525 Exemption for oxide of iron pigments under Notification No. 114/1973 depended on three independent conditions, and the presence of an excisable good as a binding agent did not, by itself, defeat the concession. The Court held that the proviso could not be read so that the third condition overrode the first; each clause operated separately, and the reference to excisable goods in the third clause was distinct from the binding-agent restriction in the first. As the respondents had stated that the product contained no binding agent beyond the permitted limit and the Department produced no material to the contrary, the exemption was available and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Thu, 18 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Apr 2014 16:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47525 Exemption for oxide of iron pigments under Notification No. 114/1973 depended on three independent conditions, and the presence of an excisable good as a binding agent did not, by itself, defeat the concession. The Court held that the proviso could not be read so that the third condition overrode the first; each clause operated separately, and the reference to excisable goods in the third clause was distinct from the binding-agent restriction in the first. As the respondents had stated that the product contained no binding agent beyond the permitted limit and the Department produced no material to the contrary, the exemption was available and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 18 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47525