<?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>2000 (2) TMI 747 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105032</link>
    <description>Commercial understanding in trade may determine whether a product falls within a fiscal notification: compounded rubber was treated as a finished rubber product because uncontested trade evidence showed that meaning, and concessional treatment under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was upheld. Articles sold as butyl rubber, banbury tailings, brass valves, empty drums and gunny bags were treated as scrap because the Tribunal found they had been condemned and sold as non-reusable goods, and that classification was sustained. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed, and the concurrent findings in favour of the dealer remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Aug 2013 11:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142071" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (2) TMI 747 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105032</link>
      <description>Commercial understanding in trade may determine whether a product falls within a fiscal notification: compounded rubber was treated as a finished rubber product because uncontested trade evidence showed that meaning, and concessional treatment under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was upheld. Articles sold as butyl rubber, banbury tailings, brass valves, empty drums and gunny bags were treated as scrap because the Tribunal found they had been condemned and sold as non-reusable goods, and that classification was sustained. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed, and the concurrent findings in favour of the dealer remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105032</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>