https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51636 Notification No. 4/97-C.E. was construed according to its actual wording: the omission of the words "draw twisted or texturised yarn" from one entry could not be ignored as redundant when those words remained in another entry. The Tribunal also accepted that duty had been paid at each stage and that the departmental characterisation of such payment as a mere deposit did not justify refusal of exemption on the facts. It further rejected the view that the factory had facilities for producing single yarn merely because texturising was carried on in the same premises, and the exemption benefit was ultimately allowed. en-us Fri, 23 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Sep 2010 12:22:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51636 Notification No. 4/97-C.E. was construed according to its actual wording: the omission of the words "draw twisted or texturised yarn" from one entry could not be ignored as redundant when those words remained in another entry. The Tribunal also accepted that duty had been paid at each stage and that the departmental characterisation of such payment as a mere deposit did not justify refusal of exemption on the facts. It further rejected the view that the factory had facilities for producing single yarn merely because texturising was carried on in the same premises, and the exemption benefit was ultimately allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 23 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51636