<?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>1970 (4) TMI 129 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100738</link>
    <description>Groundnut oil sold for manufacture of vanaspati qualified for the concessional rate under section 3(3) where both products fell within the relevant First Schedule entries. The required connection was satisfied because the oil formed a major constituent of the finished vanaspati and remained identifiable through chemical testing. Identification of a component part did not require visual distinguishability; requiring visual identification would improperly deny the concession where a raw material is absorbed into the finished product but remains scientifically identifiable. Consequently, the higher rate under section 3(1) did not apply.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2025 17:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137788" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (4) TMI 129 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100738</link>
      <description>Groundnut oil sold for manufacture of vanaspati qualified for the concessional rate under section 3(3) where both products fell within the relevant First Schedule entries. The required connection was satisfied because the oil formed a major constituent of the finished vanaspati and remained identifiable through chemical testing. Identification of a component part did not require visual distinguishability; requiring visual identification would improperly deny the concession where a raw material is absorbed into the finished product but remains scientifically identifiable. Consequently, the higher rate under section 3(1) did not apply.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100738</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>