COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE HYDERABAD vs. M/S SARVOTHAM CARE LIMITED
C.A. No.-004480-004480 - 2005Supreme Court14 May 2015
Section 11ASection 4A
1-3-1975, the introduction of Item 68 makes a
difference to the interpretation of Item 26-AA.
This is not correct. Item 68 was only intended
as a residuary item. It covers goods not
expressly mentioned in any of the earlier items.
If, as assumed by the Tribunal, the poles
manufactured were rightly classified under Item
