https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49988 Exemption for nozzles and nozzle holders was analysed under two Central Excise notifications. Under Notification No. 217/85-C.E., as amended, the benefit was denied because the goods were specifically excluded and there was no factual basis for captive use in another factory for manufacture of I.C. engines. Under Notification No. 75/86-C.E., the proviso could not enlarge the enacting part of the notification, so exemption remained confined to parts and accessories of motor vehicles, tractors and trailers and did not extend to non-vehicular use. The note states that an exclusion in the notification cannot be defeated by intended end-use alone. en-us Mon, 24 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Aug 2010 18:45:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49988 Exemption for nozzles and nozzle holders was analysed under two Central Excise notifications. Under Notification No. 217/85-C.E., as amended, the benefit was denied because the goods were specifically excluded and there was no factual basis for captive use in another factory for manufacture of I.C. engines. Under Notification No. 75/86-C.E., the proviso could not enlarge the enacting part of the notification, so exemption remained confined to parts and accessories of motor vehicles, tractors and trailers and did not extend to non-vehicular use. The note states that an exclusion in the notification cannot be defeated by intended end-use alone. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49988