<?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>1967 (5) TMI 55 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100446</link>
    <description>Cleaning, boiling, washing, sorting and bundling pig bristles did not amount to manufacture under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, because the process did not bring into existence a commercially different article. The bristles remained the same commercial commodity before and after processing, and no new product emerged. A process that only improves appearance, uniformity or marketability without changing the essential commercial identity of the goods is not manufacture. On that basis, the assessee was not a manufacturer within Explanation II(ii) to section 2(h), and the sales were not taxable on the footing that they were deemed to occur within Uttar Pradesh.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Sep 2013 13:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137497" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (5) TMI 55 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100446</link>
      <description>Cleaning, boiling, washing, sorting and bundling pig bristles did not amount to manufacture under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, because the process did not bring into existence a commercially different article. The bristles remained the same commercial commodity before and after processing, and no new product emerged. A process that only improves appearance, uniformity or marketability without changing the essential commercial identity of the goods is not manufacture. On that basis, the assessee was not a manufacturer within Explanation II(ii) to section 2(h), and the sales were not taxable on the footing that they were deemed to occur within Uttar Pradesh.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100446</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>